Social Security chief: Program 'fraying' due to inattention to its problems

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 15, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    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%.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 15, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    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?

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    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 bad idea.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 5:15 p.m.

    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.

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    Bismark came up with the basic idea and it has been a tremndous success. Chris B you are on the wrong side of history.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    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.