The whole concept of social securiy is embarrassing.People are too
undisciplined to save their money, so we ask the goverment to save it for us,
all the way incurring incredibly high expenses, with little to no accountability
that would exist privately.If I don't like how my personal
financial planner is handlng my 401k, I move it. I control it.Pathetic
Bismark came up with the basic idea and it has been a tremndous success. Chris B
you are on the wrong side of history.
Most of you are going to need it folks, in one form or another. The savings are
just not there for most of you. It should be means tested as well. Where is our
President's leadership. He always gets on the other side of all of the
issues. There is no leadership in our c ountry. Our President does not preside,
he only campaigns, his office is vacant. Your kids will pay, and pay, if you
have any, for our electing irresponsible leadership.
SS is a Ponzi scheme. People of middle class typically pay about 12% of their
earnings to pay for those that are now on SS. Problem is, the money isn't
invested safely, it's just there to fund those now receiving checks on a
"promise" that when we retire, our kids and grandkids will be funding
our SS. That is a huge risk. When you take fresh money and pay those early
"investors" with it, that is a Ponzi scheme. I wonder if we were left
alone with our 12%, if we could do more with it? I know some couldn't, and
that is governments argument to leave it alone, but what if instead of the
government, people could Opt out, and get their own investment coach to help
them out. Wait, actually, why is government in my back pocket anyway? SS is a
Privatize SS and it will survive, grow and be an effective, viable program.
Otherwise, as the article suggests, it is doomed to failure. Wasn't it GWB
who wanted to privatize it but the Democrats led by then Senator Hillary Clinton
trashed the idea?
To "Mountanman" yes, GWB wanted to privatize it, but he wasn't the
first to propose such an idea. That idea originally came from Bill Clinton, and
was opposed by the Republicans.The problem with SS is that when it
started, you didn't collect until age 65, but the average lifespan was 63.
That meant that only a few actually collected. Plus, there was an average of 20
workers per retired person. Now there are fewer workers per retired person. The
problem is going to get worse because when SS was enacted most families had more
than 4 kids, now we average 2 kids per family. Since it is the future
generation that pays for the retired generation, those that work will have to
pay more into the system.Other interesting facts are that if you
took all of your SS taxes (your portion plus your employers) and invested them
into the stock market, and assuming an 8% interest rate, you would be able to
retire indefinately at age 65. However, thanks to SS, your retirement will be
shorter because the government ROI is only about 2%.