Republicans in Congress are gearing up to fight for lower tax rates. But how do you pay for those cuts? One possible solution on the table: Taxing you on your retirement savings up front.

Several people in the retirement savings industry fear that lawmakers will choose to “Rothify” some or all of employees’ 401(k) contributions.

Today, the money you put in a traditional 401(k) is not taxed when you make the contribution. The money grows tax-deferred. But once you start taking funds out in retirement, your withdrawals are taxed as regular income.

That’s the opposite of how Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs work. In a Roth, your contributions are made after-tax, but your gains and withdrawals are then tax-free.

If lawmakers opt to “Rothify” 401(k)s, they could treat some or all of your future 401(k) contributions as taxable income the year you make them.

Related: The deductions that may be killed by tax reform

It’s not a new idea. A version of it appeared in the 2014 tax reform proposal put out by Dave Camp, then-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Under Camp’s plan, you would be allowed to contribute pre-tax up to half of the allowable annual contribution limit — which this year is $18,000. All of your employer’s match would also be treated as pre-tax. But any other money you put in would be immediately taxable.

Since the taxes paid on long-term savings would be front loaded, Rothifying 401(k)s could raise revenue in the short term — Camp’s proposal was estimated to raise nearly $144 billion over a decade. That would appear to help “pay for” the permanent tax cuts Republicans want.

But the change would lose money over time because the federal government would not get as much in revenue when employees retire and begin to make tax-free withdrawals.

Such a timing shift is a fiscal gimmick, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “It produces savings in the near term by deferring costs to the long term.”

Related: How much can I expect to earn on my retirement savings?

Okay, but would it be a good deal or a bad one for retirement savers? No one knows.

“There’s really no research dealing with the topic of how workers and employers might react,” Nevin Adams, communications chief for the American Retirement Association, noted in a recent blog post.

That may change soon. The Employee Benefit Research Institute is currently studying how Rothification might affect retirement outcomes.

In the meantime, there is industry pulse-taking. The Plan Sponsor Council of America found the vast majority of the 400 employer-sponsored-plan providers surveyed think Rothifying 401(k)s would be a bad idea, and that policymakers should give employers maximum flexibility to design their savings plans to best suit the needs of their workforce.

PSCA is part of the newly formed Save Our Savings Coalition, made up of plan providers, trade groups and savings education nonprofits. Coalition members’ worry Rothifying might dissuade people from saving as much as they would in today’s system.

As it is, a lot of employers already offer a Roth option to their workers. For instance, at Empower Retirement, the second largest plan provider in the United States, about half of its 37,000 clients do.

Across the industry, three-quarters of employer sponsored plans have a Roth feature, according to PSCA. But the take-up rate is fairly low among employees.

“When given a choice, American workers overwhelmingly choose traditional accounts over Roth accounts” said Jim McCrery, who had been a top Republican on the Ways and Means and now heads up the Save our Savings Coalition. “Reducing the availability of tax-deferred retirement savings just for the purpose of raising revenue would likely reduce the amount people save, thereby putting the financial security of tomorrow’s seniors at greater risk.”

Then again, Camp estimated that his proposal would only affect 17% of workers who contribute to 401(k)s since most people do not sock away more than half of the allowed annual contribution limit.

What is clear is that getting Americans to save enough for retirement is still an uphill battle.

Correction: The original story referred to PSCA as the Profit Sharing Council of America. That was the group’s original name, but it has since changed to the Plan Sponsor Council of America.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 24, 2017: 10:45 AM ET

Signing up for Obamacare was anything but easy.

It wasn’t as simple as filling out a few forms.

People who signed up for the Affordable Care Act insurance found they had to answer questions about income, taxes, family size and immigration status. There were also multiple choices available for plans that were not very different from each other.

But, guess what? People reached out for help.

During the enrollment period, about 10.6 million people received personal help from navigators and other enrollment assisters, according to a report released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The assistance was time consuming: 64% of the programs reported spending an hour to two hours with each consumer on average. Funded by federal and state governments as well as outside sources, there were about 28,000 individual assisters and navigators across the country, the survey found.

Almost 90% of assister programs surveyed reported that most or nearly all of the people they helped were uninsured.

Related: 8 million sign up for Obamacare

Assistance was not distributed equally across states.

People in states running their own healthcare exchange were twice as likely to receive help with enrollment. Those 16 states had about twice as many assisters per 10,000 uninsured Americans compared to the 29 states that defaulted to a federally-facilitated exchange.

The discrepancy is not terribly surprising: the states running their own exchanges had significantly more funding available for outreach and enrollment. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services awarded a much smaller $67 million in federal grants to fund navigator programs in the 34 states with federally-facilitated or partnership exchanges.

Related: Were Obamacare applications accurate? Who knows?

In addition, the mostly Republican states that defaulted to the federal exchange tend to have higher rates of individuals without insurance. Some 33% of the nation’s uninsured population lives in states running their own exchanges, while 68% live in states that defaulted to the federal exchange or set up a partnership.

In the end, it wasn’t the broken website that was the main reason people sought help — it was a lack of understanding of how Affordable Care worked. More than 85% said that most or nearly all had a limited understanding of the new healthcare law, and needed help understanding their plan choices.

Related: Uninsured rate plummets under Obamacare

Three out of four said that most or nearly all needed help understanding basic health insurance terms.

“How can you explain coverage options to someone who doesn’t know what a deductible is?” said Karen Pollitz, lead author of the survey. “It’s just a much longer conversation.”

The need for help selecting the right plan is not likely to disappear in the coming years. Some consumers are starting to come back with post-enrollment problems, Pollitz said.

“It’s a fundamental need people are probably going to have for the foreseeable future,” she said, especially as consumers experience a change in family size or employment.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

CNNMoney (New York) First published July 15, 2014: 1:04 PM ET

What if the government wiped away everyone’s student debt?

Let’s be clear. No lawmaker has proposed such a plan. But researchers at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College say it’s a proposal worth considering.

It’s a “radical solution to the student debt crisis, but one that deserves serious attention, given the radical scope of the problem,” wrote Marshall Steinbaum, one of the authors of the report, in a blog post.

There is currently $1.4 trillion of outstanding student loan debt in the US, held by about 44 million people.

Nearly 70% of college seniors at nonprofit schools left with some debt in 2015.

The researchers looked at what would happen if the government canceled all federal loans (the majority of student debt) and paid off all privately owned loans -— as a one-time policy.

Their economic models show that canceling student debt would lead to a boost in GDP by an average of $86 billion to $108 billion annually over the next 10 years. They also show that it would reduce the unemployment rate by about 0.3%.

Related: Yes, student debt is delaying homeownership

Meanwhile the cost of paying off $1.4 trillion of debt would have a “modest” effect on the deficit and inflation over the next 10 years, the report said.

In his post, Steinbaum addressed two possible criticisms: that eliminating student debt is inequitable because the largest balances are held by the highest-income borrowers, and that the debt isn’t a significant drag on the economy to begin with, since a college degree generally leads to higher earnings.

But Steinbaum says that those critiques are “much less true than they are commonly believed.”

Some critics of debt cancellation also worry that current and future borrowers could borrow even more, expecting their debt to be forgiven, too. The research did not account for a potential moral hazard, though the paper suggests that using public funds to make colleges tuition- or debt-free could help avert the problem.

Related: How they typical graduate student pays for school

While the biggest debts are held by those who go to graduate school and earn big salaries, like doctors and lawyers, student debt is increasingly held by a larger portion of the population as the cost of education has risen, Steinbaum said.

Erasing all student debt is ambitious. But forgiveness programs do exist for some federal loan borrowers. Those who work in the public sector may be eligible to have their remaining debt forgiven after 10 years of payments. Another program provides debt relief for some teachers. And those enrolled in an income-driven repayment program may be eligible for debt forgiveness after 20 or 25 years.

CNNMoney (New York) First published February 15, 2018: 1:50 PM ET

Dreaming of handing in your notice at work and joining the ranks of the retired?

Retirement can be wonderful — if you’re prepared for it. So before you put an end to your career, it’s essential to make sure you’re 100% ready.

Not sure how to do that? Taking these five steps can put you on the path to a happy and secure retirement.

If you’re part of a twosome, retirement doesn’t just affect you; it’s a profound lifestyle change for your entire family. Before you take the leap, get on the same page as your spouse.

Will you both be retiring, or will your spouse work longer? If your spouse is planning to maintain a career, will you end up being responsible for more household tasks — and are you OK with that? These questions need to be answered.

You’ll also have to think through how your decision will affect your family finances — especially when it comes to Social Security benefits. If you’re claiming Social Security benefits early, you’ll reduce the monthly benefits you receive for the rest of your life — as well as any survivors benefits your spouse could receive if he or she were to outlive you.

Devise a Social Security claiming strategy with your spouse before you file for benefits that maximizes your combined income, as you can’t easily change your plans once benefits have begun.

When you no longer have a paycheck coming in, you’ll need funds from other sources.

For most people, retirement income comes from Social Security and savings. A lucky few — mostly government workers — have a defined benefit pension plan to provide guaranteed income. For the rest of us, having enough money invested to supplement Social Security is essential.

To make sure you won’t come up short, add up all your potential sources of retirement funds — from pensions, Social Security, and withdrawals from retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs — and figure out what your total monthly income will be.

Estimate your Social Security income by visiting mySocial Security to find your benefit amount at full retirement age. Once you’re logged in, there’s a free retirement estimator to help you determine what your benefits will be based on the age you retire. If you’re not ready to create an account, the SSA also has a quick calculator available to estimate benefits by inputting your current year’s earnings, your birth date, and your future retirement date.

To determine the income you’ll receive from investments, you could use the 4% rule, which allows you to withdraw 4% of your account balance in your first year of retirement and then adjust that withdrawal amount each year based on inflation. However, there’s a chance you’ll run out of money by following the 4% rule, so you may want to take another tactic, such as following the advice of experts from the Center for Retirement Research to determine what percentage of your account balance to withdraw annually.

When you add up Social Security income, income from investments, and any other money you’ll have coming, you can make an informed choice about whether it’s feasible to live on the funds available.

So how do you know if the total income you’ll have will be sufficient to support you?

The best way to tell is to actually make a budget. Factor in all of your fixed costs, such as housing, taxes, and insurance. Add up other expenditures such as traveling, clothing, personal care items, transportation, food, and entertainment. And don’t forget to include saving: Just because you’re no longer investing for retirement doesn’t mean you don’t need to put aside money for other purposes, such as home repairs or emergencies.

Your budget will reveal how much money you’d actually need. If it shows you’ll have plenty of income to cover everything, you’re good to go and can hand in your notice.

If it doesn’t, decide between scaling down your expectations for retirement or increasing your retirement income by working longer, saving more, and earning delayed-retirement credits to boost Social Security benefits.

One of the big line items in your budget will be healthcare costs.

Seniors often suffer from serious medical conditions, and Medicare doesn’t provide the comprehensive coverage most people believe it does. You’ll have to pick up a lot of prescription costs on your own; you’ll pay premiums and coinsurance expenses; and you’ll need to pay out of pocket entirely for care that isn’t covered, such as nursing home services.

Recent estimates suggest a senior couple in the top percentile for prescription drug use would need $370,000 to be reasonably certain of covering their healthcare needs in retirement. If you don’t have that much, explore options such as working longer and investing in a health savings account or purchasing the most comprehensive Medicare Advantage and long-term care insurance available.

Finally, you need to think about what you’ll actually do during retirement. Some seniors suffer health issues, including depression, when they lose their sense of community and purpose. Have a plan to reduce the risk of becoming lonely and disconnected from the world after retirement.

Depending upon your interests, this plan could include volunteering with local organizations, joining a senior center, babysitting your grandkids, joining a travel group, or taking exercise classes (seniors can often join a gym for free through Medicare’s SilverSneakers program). You could also do some part-time consulting work, either for pay or through volunteer organizations such as SCORE.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

If you’ve gone through these five steps and still feel ready to retire, congrats! You should hopefully have the savings you need to enjoy your golden years.

If you’ve found you’re not quite ready yet, take heart — you’ve taken the important step of identifying the tasks to accomplish and can start checking things off your to-do list.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 20, 2018: 10:19 AM ET

Social Security is only designed to replace about 40% of the average retiree’s income, leaving two options — either dramatically reduce your standard of living, or create additional income from other sources.

While annuities are certainly one way to create an income stream, there are some downsides to this popular approach. Specifically, annuities often have high fees, and better returns can often be achieved elsewhere.

With that in mind, here are five retirement income strategies that could be smart options for you to supplement your monthly Social Security checks.

As the name implies, a reverse mortgage works in the opposite manner of a traditional mortgage. Instead of making monthly payments to a bank and building equity in your home, the bank makes payments to you in exchange for your equity.

Reverse mortgages are available to homeowners 62 and older who own enough equity in their home to justify the loan. Upon obtaining a reverse mortgage, the lender makes payments to you and interest begins to accumulate on the outstanding balance.

However, you’ll never have to pay back the reverse mortgage unless you sell your home. Reverse mortgages are generally paid off through the sale of a home, either during the borrower’s lifetime or after death.

To be clear, there are some downsides to reverse mortgages. Even so, in many cases, reverse mortgages can be a smart way to create an income stream without touching your retirement nest egg.

When it comes to creating retirement income, I’m a fan of maintaining a properly allocated investment portfolio of stocks and bonds.

We’ll get to stock investing later, but there are some basic problems with bond investing, especially that bonds pay extremely low interest rates on a historical basis.

The concept of a bond ladder can help you still get current income, while also allowing yourself to boost your future income if rates rise.

Here’s a simplified explanation of how a bond ladder might work. Let’s say that you have $100,000 to invest, so instead of putting it all in 10-year bonds, you would put 20% in bonds that mature in two years, another 20% in four-year bonds, and so on. The result is that you’ll get the higher income of some longer-dated bonds, but every two years, you’ll have $20,000 to put to work at the then-current long-term rates.

This is the most “outside-the-box” way to create retirement income on the list, but it has become more popular recently. For example, a retired couple who plans to retire to a beach town might buy a bed and breakfast.

The “buy a business” route can be an especially good option because it can help cure another issue commonly encountered in retirement — boredom. Operating a business can keep you active and engaged.

There are clearly some downsides of this option. For example, owning your business can be a risky way to make money, and not all retirees are physically capable of running a business. However, this is an interesting option for entrepreneurial-minded retirees.

Investing in real estate can produce excellent income, and can also increase your net worth over time. And thanks to the power of leverage (mortgage financing), retirees don’t necessarily need a ton of money to get started.

There are several risks to be aware of. Vacancies, bad tenants, and unexpected maintenance issues are just a few of the uncertainties. However, for many people, the reward potential can definitely outweigh the risk. In fact, investing in rental properties is a big part of my own retirement planning strategy.

Last, but certainly not least, stock investing can be an excellent way to generate a growing income stream in retirement.

A smart approach for retirees is to focus on dividend growth stocks — in other words, stocks that not only pay dividends, but have a solid history of increasing their dividend payments. For example, Procter & Gamble has an above-average 3.7% dividend yield and has increased its payout for 62 consecutive years. Stocks like this pay more than you can get from many intermediate-term investment-grade bonds, with the added probability of rising income over time.

If you aren’t comfortable with choosing individual stocks, you can invest in diverse assortments of these companies through mutual funds and ETFs.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

The best choice for you depends on your risk tolerance, the level of involvement you want to have, and other factors. While it’s likely that not all these suggestions are ideal for you, my point is to get you thinking about alternatives before putting your retirement nest egg into an annuity or other fixed-income strategy.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 21, 2018: 10:22 AM ET

High returns aren’t the only factor to consider when choosing your investments.

A tax-efficient portfolio can save you enough on your tax bill to nicely compliment your investment returns. Take a look at your own portfolio to see if you’ve implemented the following tax-shrinking tips.

Investors have plenty of options for tucking away their money. If you do your investing in accounts with built-in tax advantages, such as HSAs, IRAs, and 401(k)s, you can save a bundle on your tax bill. Investments in these accounts don’t generate taxes when you receive dividends from stocks or interest from bonds, and they also won’t incur capital gains taxes if you sell an investment for a profit.

In addition, IRAs and 401(k)s give you a tax break either on the money you put into the account or the money you take out (depending on whether the account is a traditional tax-deferred account or a Roth account). HSAs actually give you a tax break on both contributions and distributions, making them the only triple tax-advantaged account.

These accounts are such a great deal that the IRS has put limits on how much you’re allowed to contribute to them each year. So throw your investing dollars into these tax-advantaged accounts until you hit the annual maximum; then and only then should you focus on building up your standard brokerage accounts.

Certain investments have built-in tax savings. For example, treasury securities are exempt from state taxes (although you will still have to pay federal taxes on the interest).

Municipal bonds take the tax advantage a step further: They are exempt from federal taxes and may also be exempt from state taxes, if the bond was issued by the state you live in. Clearly, if you’re going to buy municipal bonds, look for ones from your state of residence to max out the tax savings.

A tax-advantaged investment is not always the best choice. The bonds that come with a tax break pay lower returns than bonds that don’t, and depending on your situation, the tax break may or may not make up for the lower returns. For example, if you live in a state with high state taxes, tax-free municipal securities are likely to be a good deal — but if you live in a state with no state taxes, the federal tax savings alone likely won’t be enough to turn municipal bonds into a good deal.

The big selling point of municipal bonds is their potentially high tax break — but if you put a municipal bond in an IRA, the tax advantage disappears. Why? Because you don’t pay taxes on any bond interest that’s deposited into an IRA, whether it’s from a municipal bond or not. Thus, putting municipal bonds in a tax-advantaged account is a waste of money.

Similarly, real estate investment trusts (REITs), while a great investment, can expose you to high taxes because of the very high dividends these securities are required to generate. Tucking your REITs into a tax-advantaged account such as an IRA neatly erases this disadvantage, since the copious dividends that REITs produce will not be taxed as they come in.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

Matching up investments and accounts correctly can protect you from the drawbacks of heavily taxed investments while allowing you to take full advantage of the tax breaks that other investments enjoy. And that can lead to a considerably more pleasant experience on April 15 every year.

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 7, 2017: 9:44 AM ET

Michael Wall has $3,600 at stake in the debate over Obamacare subsidies.

Wall is one of the 4.7 million Americans closely watching dueling court decisions released Tuesday on whether the government can subsidize premiums for people who bought health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Wall pays $657 a month on premiums for Obamacare health coverage. The government would subsidize about $300 a month, or $3,600 a year. Americans like him are anxiously waiting to see how it all plays out in court.

Anything could happen.

Obamacare recipients who have already received their government subsidies may be on the hook to pay it back if one court ruling is upheld that wipes out tax credits that subsidize health insurance on the federal healthcare.gov exchange. A second ruling okayed the subsidies.

Wall has been wary of the controversial politics around Obamacare, which is why he decided to wait to get his subsidy when he files his 2014 taxes next year.

“I didn’t want any uncertainty,” said Wall, 59, of Atlanta. “I didn’t want to have to worry about paying the government back.”

Related: Split decisions on Obamacare

Obamacare has been a boon for Wall, who retired in late 2012 after nearly 40 years in the airline industry, primarily at Delta Airlines.

Decades of loading freight and passengers on airplanes in the early morning hours was stressful work and Wall wanted to retire early without worrying about healthcare expenses.

Wall deals with minor health issues, including complications from surgery on a torn leg tendon.

Related: I’m quitting my job. Thanks, Obamacare!

Delta kicked in a nice enough incentive package of $100,000 for medical expenses that Wall decided to retire early.

He gets a monthly pension of $1,300 and each month.

Wall Obamacare premium is cheaper than the $800-plus he was paying for his employer-sponsored health care coverage through COBRA.

While his lifestyle is hardly lavish, Wall said he can live without the subsidy. But he’d be happy if it comes.

“I’m not rich but I’m not in poverty,” said Wall, and Obamacare gives him an affordable peace of mind.

CNNMoney (Washington) First published July 22, 2014: 3:21 PM ET

The hotel industry is using free tuition to try to lure — and keep — workers.

The American Hotel and Lodging Association is rolling out a pilot program this month that offers an online associate’s degree at no cost to workers and an online bachelor’s degree at a subsidized cost.

The goal is to attract and retain good employees.

“We’ve had eight years of growth and job creation, but at the same time we have a labor shortage,” said Katherine Lugar, president and CEO of the industry group.

There are currently more than 700,000 job openings in the hospitality sector, according to government data.

So far ten hotel brands and management companies have come on board — including New Castle Hotels and Resorts, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts and Red Roof Inns.

Related: Hospitals offer big bonuses, free housing and tuition to recruit nurses

It’s up to the companies to pay the cost of the degrees. But the American Hotel and Lodging Association has partnered with Pearson to make the process easier. The education company negotiates with schools for lower prices, said Jim Homer who heads Pearson’s AcceleratED Pathways program. They also vet the degree programs, making sure they are at accredited, nonprofit colleges.

The funding and eligibility requirements for the benefit will vary by company. Not all will offer a bachelor’s degree options, but those that do will subsidize the cost. For example, a worker with no previous college credits may end up paying about $24,000 for the bachelor’s degree, Homer said. An associate’s degree would be free to the employee.

The average student pays about $10,000 each year in tuition in fees (without room and board) at an in-state public college when pursuing a bachelor’s degree, according to The College Board. A two-year degree costs $3,520 a year, on average.

Related: Student loan payments are the new employee perk

At Wyndham, all employees at its managed properties will be eligible after 12 months of employment. The company will cover the full cost of tuition, fees, and books needed to finish an associate’s degree. It may extend the program to bachelor’s degrees in the future, said Becky Walnoha, Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Wyndham Managed Hotels.

While Wyndham previously offered a tuition reimbursement benefit, the new program will pay the money up front.

At New Castle, six employees are expected to qualify for the pilot program at first, said Gerry Chase, the president and COO at New Castle Hotels and Resorts.

“They have to qualify to be selected. They have to be someone who shows initiative and we could see in management in the future. But they won’t be required to stay with the company,” he said.

The industry association said many managers and executives have worked their way up from entry level positions — which don’t often require college degrees. It puts the industry in a unique position to provide a pathway to higher education.

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 9, 2018: 9:22 AM ET

Earlier this year, Uber hired its first ever chief diversity officer, following a string of sexual harassment claims and other PR crises for the brand. Last month, after a year plagued by controversy, the NFL posted a job opening for a head of diversity and inclusion.

Diversity officers are popping up at many other high-profile companies, too. The titles may vary — “director of diversity and inclusion,” “chief equality officer” or “head of diversity, inclusion and belonging” — but more organizations are realizing this is something that matters to their employees. It even merits an entire position (or sometimes, even its own department).

According to data from Indeed, demand for the roles has increased significantly in just the last few years. Between 2017 and 2018, Indeed postings for diversity and inclusion positions had increased by nearly 20%.

But what does a diversity officer do?

Diversity and inclusion roles require expertise in three important areas: employee recruitment, retention and engagement. Diversity and inclusion go hand-in-hand, which is exactly why you see them in so many of these job titles. In diversifying a company workforce, leaders then also have to make sure employees from underrepresented groups feel welcome.

“All these efforts have to be connected,” says Mary Pharris, director of business development and partnerships at Fairygodboss, a job review site for women. “Because then you get a disconnect with what you’re doing in the recruitment process, which ultimately affects how you retain employees.”

Focusing on diversity and inclusion isn’t just a good PR move, something to implement in the wake of a crisis. Instead, says Pharris, it’s a proven investment in company success.

“There’s been study after study that shows diversity is good for the bottom line,” she says. “So by investing in this, companies are doing the right thing. It not only makes your employees happy at the end of the day, but if your employees are happy they’re more likely to stay.”

Ciara Trinidad, program manager for inclusion and diversity at Netflix (NFLX), has learned to keep her eyes on it all.

“This is not just siloed to recruiting and HR,” she says. “It’s the way in sales we talked and targeted the people who would eventually become our customers, the way we treated the people who served us catered lunch … the goal of this job is to eventually work myself out of a job.”

That meant focusing on recruiting, but also on training and developing the talent already at the company — especially those in positions of influence.

“The solvers of this problem are our people managers,” she says. “They’re the ones who set the pace for employees’ personal development. If you don’t invest in them in all the ways you can, it’s not going to work.”

Netflix strives for diversity not just in its employees, but in its programming as well. Her usual day could involve meeting with talent partners, production managers and employee resource groups, talking about what they want in the workplace and what could be better for people like them.

She admits the “working herself out of a job” thing might not be happening any time soon.

In the past, many companies relied on employees from underrepresented groups to spark change from the ground level. Trinidad says her job now is focused on listening to those employees, raising their concerns to the highest levels and implementing policies to help.

“They don’t need to be distracted thinking about how to survive this workplace, how to make it even better for people like themselves,” she says. “They just need to be focused on their job, [and] I need to be focused on building infrastructure so they feel like they can be themselves.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 21, 2018: 11:07 AM ET

I’m in my mid 60s and have about $1.2 million I would like to invest for the maximum income possible for the rest of my life. I don’t care for stocks or bonds because I hate the idea of seeing the value of my savings drop if the market has a correction. And I don’t understand annuities. Any suggestions?—M.B.

You’ve got a number of conflicting wants and needs that you’d do well to sort out if you hope to come up with a sensible plan to convert your nest egg into income that can support you the rest of your life.

You say, for example, that you want “the maximum income possible,” yet you seem bent on ruling out stocks and bonds, investments that, in combination, have a solid record of being able to deliver the size returns you need to generate a high level of income for the long term.

You also express concern about the value of your savings dropping during market downturns. That’s understandable. No one enjoys seeing his nest egg take a hit, especially the gut punch of a severe bear market. But this aversion to seeing even a temporary decline is incompatible with your desire for maximum income. The more you dampen up-and-down swings in the value of your retirement portfolio, the more you reduce your return potential, which makes it tougher to get the higher retirement income you seek. You can’t have it both ways, a shot at maximum income and total stability.

Finally, you say you want this income to last for life. But you then seem to suggest that annuities — a type of investment specifically designed to create a payout you can’t outlive — are a no-go. I agree that annuities can be difficult, sometimes almost impossible, to understand. And I don’t want to suggest that you must own an annuity. Still, if you really want retirement income you can count on for the rest of your life, I think it’s at least worth considering whether an annuity might make sense.

All of which is to say that I think you need to consider setting a more realistic goal when it comes to retirement income — namely, creating a plan that can get you a reasonable amount of sustainable income given your resources, while limiting volatility to a manageable level rather than trying to do away with it altogether.

Related: 4 steps you should take when buying an annuity

The first step toward creating such a plan is to get a handle on how much income you’ll need to cover your retirement expenses. You can do that by going to an online budgeting tool like BlackRock’s Retirement Expense Worksheet, which has room for you to enter dozens of retirement expenses ranging from essential outlays for housing, food, health care and transportation to more discretionary expenditures for travel, entertainment and charitable donations.

Once you’ve toted up your expenses, you can then see how much of those costs you’ll be able to pay for with assured income from sources like Social Security and any pensions. If you haven’t already begun drawing Social Security, you can see what size monthly check you might receive by going to the Social Security Administration’s Retirement Estimator tool.

More likely than not, there will be a gap — i.e., your expenses will exceed the amount you’ll collect from Social Security and any pensions. The simplest way to fill that gap is to draw enough from savings each year to cover the expenses that Social Security and any pensions can’t. Question is, how do you do this without running through your savings too quickly?

Start by being judicious about withdrawals. If you want your nest egg to last 30 or more years — a reasonable assumption given today’s long life spans — you should probably limit yourself to an initial withdrawal of no more than 3% to 4% of the value of your savings. You can then increase that amount each year by the inflation rate to maintain your purchasing power.

Assuming an initial withdrawal of 4% and annual inflation of 2% would, in your case, translate to withdrawing $48,000 the first year of retirement (4% of $1.2 million), about $49,000 the second year ($48,000 plus 2% inflation), roughly $50,000 the third year ($49,000 plus 2% inflation), etc. You can always withdraw more, but the more you pull out, the greater the chance you may exhaust your savings too soon.

How you invest your retirement savings also plays a role in determining how long your nest egg might last. I get that you have an aversion to seeing the value of your savings decline during periods of market turmoil. To totally avoid that possibility, however, you would pretty much need to invest all your savings in cash equivalents like money-market accounts and CDs. Problem is, these investments generate such low returns that, even if you limit yourself to a withdrawal rate of 3% to 4%, you would still run a not insignificant risk of outliving your savings.

So unless you’re willing to cut back on the amount you withdraw each year — or accept a higher risk of running out of money before you run out of time — you need the more generous returns that a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds (or, more likely stock and bond funds) can deliver.

Related: Should I move half of my savings into an annuity?

That doesn’t mean you have to invest all, or even most, of your savings in stocks. Even a small dollop of stocks, as little as 30% or so, can provide enough return potential to substantially reduce the risk of outliving your savings compared with an all-cash equivalents portfolio. Which means you should have plenty of leeway for finding a mix of stocks and bonds that can get you the retirement income you need without subjecting your nest egg to wild swings in value.

You can get an idea of what stocks-bonds mix might be right for you (and how different mixes have fared in the past) by completing this risk tolerance-asset allocation questionnaire. To see how long your nest egg might last at different withdrawal rates and with various combinations of stocks and bonds, check out this retirement income calculator.

Up to this point, we’ve been talking probabilities of how long you might be able to draw a given amount of income from savings, not certainties. But there is a way to create income that’s guaranteed to last as long as you do: buy an annuity. Granted, annuities can be complex and confounding. But there is one type that, relative to other annuities at least, is fairly easy to understand: an immediate annuity.

You turn over a lump sum of savings to an insurer and in return get monthly payments for life. Today, for example, a 65-year-old man who invests $100,000 in an immediate annuity would receive about $550 a month for life; a 65-year-old woman would get $530 a month; and a 65-year-old couple (man and woman) would receive about $470 a month as long as either is alive. (This annuity calculator can show you how much income you’d receive based on your age, sex and amount invested.)

But even this relatively straightforward annuity comes with conditions you need to understand, one of the most significant being that in return for guaranteed income for life you typically give up all or most access to the money you’ve invested. Which is one reason I think anyone who feels they might want more guaranteed income than Social Security alone will provide should consider this two-pronged strategy: Invest enough of your savings in an annuity so that the annuity’s payments along with income from Social Security and any pensions will cover all or most essential expenses; then invest the rest in an appropriate mix of stocks, bonds and cash you can draw on as needed to pay any additional expenses. If such a strategy appeals to you, be sure to check out these tips for choosing an annuity before committing to one.

Given the wariness expressed in your question, you may very well decide that even a relatively conservative mix of stocks and bonds — in conjunction with an annuity or not — isn’t right for you. And that’s fine. I’m sure you won’t have trouble finding advisers suggesting plenty of other ways to go. Remember, though, that any realistic strategy to convert savings to sustainable retirement income will necessarily involve trade offs and compromises, not mention varying levels of fees. Just make sure that before you sign on, you know exactly what those trade offs, compromises and fees are.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 23, 2018: 10:17 AM ET