Merrill Edge joined lots of other brokerages last autumn in moving customers' settlement (core) accounts into low paying (though FDIC-insured) bank accounts. Current yield is 0.14% (up to $250K).
https://advisorhub.com/merrill-to-shift-client-cash-into-bofa-accounts-and-away-from-cash/
Here's a column (Feb 19, 2019) giving options for cash in these accounts. There are some MMFs you can buy that pay a passable rate of interest, though well under 2%. (Fidelity's default SPAXX currently yields 2.05%.)
https://www.mymoneyblog.com/merrill-edge-brokerage-cash-sweep-options.html
Two items of note in that column:
There's a 2.07% bank account you can get into if you bootstrap it with $100K (you can reduce the amount once opened);
The same $100K will get you into some institutional MMFs.
A couple of those funds actually have fluctuating NAVs, i.e. are real, institutional, non-government MMFs. A prime fund (currently yielding 2.54%) and a muni fund.

As the article notes, there are a few exceptions to the rule that you can skip RMDs with employer accounts: if you're a 5% owner of the company, or if the plan docs (not the IRS) require you to take RMDs at 70½. But generally you don't have to take RMDs if you're still working there.
You raised two new questions: does this cover all types of employer plans, and what about continuing to contribute.
If I may offer a side comment, I think Congress went a little wacko in creating all these hybrid plans, SIMPLE, SEP-IRA, SARSEPs. There are "clean" employer plans, 401(k)s, 403(b)s. There are IRAs. Then there are these genetic mutations. I try not to look at them unless I have to (and I have had a SEP IRA).
Apparently they (SEPs and SIMPLEs) follow the IRA RMD rules. No exceptions. See
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds
Can you continue contributing? Something that I was never worried about, but a quick search turned up this ThinkAdvisor piece. If it is to be believed (I haven't checked tax code, etc. to verify), you can continue contributing to 401(k)s, and the employer must continue contributions to SEPs. But you can't contribute to a traditional IRA. But, but, you can continue contributing to a Roth IRA.
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/08/22/the-post-70-retirement-plan-contribution-rules/?page_all=1
Is this anyway to run a tax code?

Here's you go ... can save up to 10 Watchlists, each with up to 25 Tickers. Just click on specific watchlist to run in MultiSearch. c

@PopTart - at your age, assuming you are working, I don't think you need to consider income producing investments. If you do, it would be more as a strategy for long term growth (i.e. reinvesting divs but focusing on high div portion of market) than as a source of immediate income.
Your neighbor is in a different situation. It sounds like he's looking for immediate income for now. One way to increase current income is to invest in closed end funds. This isn't my strong suit (I invest for total return, focus on long term, etc.), so I'll just offer general comments here.
CEFs boost income in two ways. One is that they normally trade at a discount to NAV. Say there's a 5% discount on a fund with bonds paying 4%. Instead of paying $100 for $4/year, you pay only $95 for $4/year. That boosts your payout to 4.21%.
What matters here is not only the discount but the trend of the discount. If a given fund always sells at a discount to NAV (say between 5% and 10%) and you're buying it when it is selling at a 5% discount, it's likely that when you sell, it will be even cheaper and you'll lose some principal. So that's one thing to watch out for. (Z-scores can help here.)
A second way that CEFs boost income is with leverage. Like a bank they borrow money, paying out a certain rate of interest to the lenders, and using that money to buy bonds paying even more. If they can, they (and you) win. If they wind up having to pay more on the borrowed money than they can make, they (and you) lose.
I did a little searching using the engine on CEFConnect (free registration required). Nice tool, but one needs to have a sense of what to look for. It's just not in my range of experience. Perhaps someone else here can suggest specific CEFs.
https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener

@msf - Thank you for that correction. That's an important distinction. In my head that means that if you contribute to a retirement account with your employer, be it 401k, IRA or whatever else they call it and you remain employed past the age of 70.5 you can take a pass on RMD's? Or can somebody give me an example of what an employer's retirement plan is that isn't what I think it is (e.g. 401k, IRA)?

I did a google search on "can one delay RMD's past age 70.5" and found several linked articles but none of which pertain to mutual funds so consider this input useless or of little value.
...
Here's one from Forbes in May, 2018 to get you started:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcarlson/2018/03/23/when-rmds-from-retirement-accounts-arent-required/#411487ad909d

Great find! It's got everything right and lays things out clearly.

"It is possible to delay RMDs if one is still working"
It is true that one can delay RMDs from an employer retirement plan before retirement. The article was discussing RMDs for IRAs though ("It's ridiculous that the IRS forces them to begin withdrawing from their IRAs"). One cannot delay RMDs for an IRA - that's the point of the article.
" It is said that the IRS has never defined the term "still working""
That's correct, since the term "still working" doesn't appear in the IRC or in the regs. The expression used in the Regulations is "retires from employment with the employer maintaining the plan" (401(a) and 403(b)). In plain English it's essentially the same thing, so perhaps a distinction without a difference.
Again, this RMD exception applies only to employer sponsored retirement plans, not to IRAs.Note that employers have the option of imposing RMDs at age 70½ even on current employees. That could be a source of some of the confusion.
Regarding "April 1 of the year after one turns 70.5", that's not too complicated, though the ramifications may be. If you turn 70½ in 2019, you have an RMD this year. Your deadline for this first RMD is April 1 of the next year, 2020.
That can lead to two RMDs in the same year 2020, one for 2019 and one for 2020. That would boost your income in 2020. That's your choice, how you plan your taxes, just as bunching deductions every other year is your choice, how you plan your taxes. The IRS is giving you flexibility. If it's confusing, just ignore the flexibility and do everything on a calendar basis.

There was an article posted about a week ago about some dividend paying ETF"s that not only paid regular income but also beat the S&P 500 over a 5-yr span. PEY, RDIV and SPHD stood out to me from that group. Your neighbor will need a brokerage account to access them though.

I did a google search on "can one delay RMD's past age 70.5" and found several linked articles but none of which pertain to mutual funds so consider this input useless or of little value.
It seems that you can if you are still working for the same employer/company as you've always been and there seems to be a few other work arounds as well.
I converted all of my IRA's to Roth IRA's back when the Roth's became available so I really haven't kept up on this topic.
Here's one from Forbes in May, 2018 to get you started:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcarlson/2018/03/23/when-rmds-from-retirement-accounts-arent-required/#411487ad909d

PTIAX for monthlies. (Performance Trust multi-asset bonds.)
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/ptiax/quote.html
CM for quarterlies. (CIBC, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, can be bought on NYSE.) Today, Morningstar shows CM is selling at a -16% discount. The yield is 5.05%. It's one of the huge 6 Canadian banks which hold 90% of retail deposits in Canada. The banks up there are highly regulated. Customer service sucks, but the banks are financially solid.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/cm/quote.html

It is possible to delay RMDs if one is still working, but the issue is so complex that most of us would be unable to read the IRS rules. I spent some time reviewing the discussions of the issue online and came away more confused than when I started. It is said that the IRS has never defined the term "still working" for the purposes of determining if the taxpayer can delay RMDs. I also know that delaying can result in having to take two RMDs in a single tax year, an event that could easily bump one into a higher bracket. Anything that begins with "by April 1 of the year after one turns 70.5" is sure to confound even the most literate and informed. It gets worse from there. CPAs and the like have a steady source of employment because of such confusing statutes.

Hi - I honestly can't think of any more educated an unbiased people to ask this question to than the good folks here at MFO.
A neighbor of mine is thinking of putting money into income producing investments. I'd guess that he's in his early to mid 50's and is confined to a wheelchair due to fibromyalgia (hope I spelled that right!). He's getting some social security disability payments and is living with his parents. I don't know what his current portfolio looks like. He'll inherit some money and the house when his parents pass away, although I don't know what those figures will be. He doesn't want to consult with a broker like Fidelity and the others as he seems to have had a bad experience with at least one of these firms and simply doesn't trust them.
He asked me if I could suggest income producing investments and all I could think of were Vanguard Wellington, Vanguard Wellesley and Matthews Asia Growth & Income (VWELX, VWINX and MACSX). I've focused more on capital appreciation with my portfolio although it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to consider income producing investments also. I'm now at the ripe-old age of 35. I know, geezer city! : )
Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions!

That is what the plan providers would tell people. But when you reach 70.5, the RMD kick in. (Divide your expected tax deferred income by 27.4 for the first year, and each year the divisor goes down.)
Also add in your income, which will include up to 85% of your Social Security income. Add other incomes in there and you might end up with a big taxable income. Then with that big taxable income, your Medicare part B & D might cost a lot more.
Next year is my RMD, but my tax deferred income is fairly low as I've been contributing to my Roth since it began. The rest is in taxable. I went to 95% cash on my IRA to keep the taxes down. My taxable and Roth do the heavy lifting.
Dave

@openice: CEFA , CEF Connect, M*, and Guggenheim are showing the same, .1821
Regards,
Ted
CEFA.Com
https://www.cefa.com/FundSelector/FundDetail.fs?ID=116430
CEFConnect.Com
https://www.cefconnect.com/fund/GOF
M*.Com
https://www.morningstar.com/news/globe-news-wire/GNW_7552435/guggenheim-investments-announces-march-2019-closedend-fund-distributions.html
Guggenheim Website:
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.com/cef/fund/gof

When we save into tax deferred retirement account we push taxes (on income) into the future.
It would be an interesting stat to compare present day tax savings in the year that the IRA contribution was made to the tax liability on that contribution (and its potential investment growth) over time. The longer that we have for investments to potentially grow the better the potential outcome.
If I pay taxes on $100 at a rate of 20% in the year I earn that income I net $80 after taxes. If instead, I let the $100 grow tax deferred and I remain in a 20% tax bracket in retirement the government stands to collect not only it's initial 20%, but also 20% of any growth that the $100 made. I keep 80%.
It seems to me that the closer one is to withdrawing IRA funds (whether RMD or not) the less impactful (investment success) these tax deferred contributions can potentially be.
In fact, if you were one year away from retirement withdrawals and that $100 tax deferred contribution fell in value to say $50 (that would suck for you) and then it was withdrawn from the IRA, the taxes collected would be halved as well (that would suck for Uncle Sam).
This is why contributions made closer to retirement should be carefully invested on the risk spectrum. Those dollar potentially have less time to grow meaningfully.
Thoughts?

@openice:I'm not seeing that ! M* March distribution 0.18211 - Guggenheim Website 0.18210:
Regards,
Ted
M*: GOF
https://www.morningstar.com/news/globe-news-wire/GNW_7552435/guggenheim-investments-announces-march-2019-closedend-fund-distributions.html
Guggenheim Website:GOF
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.com/cef/fund/gof

FYI: Norway’s giant state pension fund is in the headlines because it decided to stop investing in energy exploration and production, or upstream oil. That is surprising and ironic because much of the assets in the fund came from North Sea oil production.
The less obvious—and more important—point is that Norway’s state pension fund can make that shift because it invests in equities. The fund, known as the Government Pension Fund Global, is a globally significant asset manager that generates returns for citizens and expresses social policy in its investment decisions.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/social-security-funding-stocks-norway-oil-divestment-51552074915?refsec=funds
Norway’s Gargantuan Pension Fund Will Drop Oil Investments:
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1dg25160qpvmf/Norway-s-Gargantuan-Pension-Fund-Will-Drop-Oil-Investments

FYI: When Ron Strobel was an investment adviser in Seattle, many of his clients were Boeing engineers. They loved their jobs and wanted to keep working as long as they could.
But when they reached age 70½, they had to take required minimum distributions from their individual retirement accounts. They didn't like it.
"RMDs are the No. 1 complaint I hear" from people of retirement age, said Mr. Strobel, founder of Retire Sensibly. "I am seeing more and more clients work into their 70s either because they have to or because they just like working. It's ridiculous that the IRS forces them to begin withdrawing from their IRAs when they don't want to or don't need to."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=YHqDXLSVMqGXjwSOrILIBA&q=+Legislation+When+clients+work+past+70,+RMDs+are+still+required+—+and+begrudged+&btnK=Google+Search&oq=+Legislation+When+clients+work+past+70,+RMDs+are+still+required+—+and+begrudged+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3516.3516..4536...0.0..0.64.123.2......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.F7mJdAhiPsA

I think one thing that some miss is that the lower income folks have less of a need to max out their 401k vs. other options for savings. I'm a single guy who makes a little over 50k. My marginal tax rate is 12% with long term capital gains at 0%. I invest in my 401k only enough to get the full employer match, then turn to fully funding a Roth IRA. At such a low tax rate, I am happy to pay taxes now and not have to worry about such in the future, and I maintain the flexibility to pull the money out, with no fees etc, if some disaster happens. After I fund my Roth IRA, I then simply put any extra money into a regular brokerage account. I would only consider putting more money into a 401k, after I have a sizeable chunk of money in my regular brokerage account.
A married couple making 90k would probably find themselves in a similar situation where maxing a 401k may not be the best option even if the money could be spared.

When the median household income is around $60k, how can you expect a high % of people maxing out 401(k)s? $18k would be 30% going to retirement savings - just not going to happen.

I agree with JoJo on this. Criticizing low-income workers for not maxing-out is reminiscent of Wilbur Ross wondering why all those unpaid government workers didn’t simply obtain a loan. :)
Couple thoughts: The IRS allows a generous catch-up provision during a worker’s later years if they failed to max out in early years. I learned of it accidentally through an “overheard” conversation at work. It proved a great way to make up for my lackluster contributions earlier. Folks nearing retirement (age 50+) should look into it. Think it depends on your employer’s willingness to allow it. https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T047-C001-S001-the-rules-for-making-ira-401-k-catch-up-contributi.html
Second thought: It’s hard to tell exactly what % of one’s disposable income maxing out would take. Remember the tax deferral one receives when contributing at work. When I was working, a buck contributed was costing something like 75 cents out of pocket - give or take.
On the other hand, if you include all the other taxes we pay in addition to income tax (sales tax, car & boat licensing fees, property tax, phone tax, gas tax, tax on alcoholic beverages & tobacco, social security tax, etc) than your disposable income is really much lower than first appears. That would make maxing out a really onerous option for lower wage workers. Heck, it could easily take 30% or even 40% of their disposable income.