Get rid of social security?

I believe this refers to the Galveston Plan where county workers managed to create their own "Social Security" plan prior to that option being eliminated.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

The fundamental difference between Social Security and the Galveston Plan is that Social Security was created as a "pay as you go" tax and spend welfare program while the Galveston Plan is an investment plan for employees. The Galveston Plan pays retirees based upon privatized investment accounts and also provides for disability and survivor benefits which are also a part of Social Security.

The big difference is in the retirement benefits that a person receives. Because the Galveston Plan is an investment plan as opposed to a tax and spend plan it has provided over 50% more in retirement income than Social Security.

This is what advocates of privatization point out. The fundamental difference between a tax and spend welfare program and an investment plan is that investments increase assets over time for retirement whereas tax and spend programs do not increase assets for retirement.

 

Placing SS funds in the private market is like taking your grandmothers food money and "investing" it in the lottery. It is irresponsible.

There is NO sector of the private market that is reliable enough for me to expect my grandmother (or mother's) well being to be dependent upon it. But then I love my mother and grandmother AND --- I wouldn't suggest a 30 year old in a coma should die for lack of medical insurance either.

What is amazing me is how those who claim to follow Christ can do so AND have such an odd concept of their obligations to their fellow man--- but I suppose that is topic for another thread.

 

The Govt is reliable? Seriously? Do you realize that while the inflation rate has been betwwen 3.5 and 4.5% for many years now, funds in SS have been "earning" 2% returns? Obama's antics will drive inflation up most assuredly and the gap will grow MUCH wider. Do you understand that we are putting money into SS just to watch it erode away? We would do better to mandate that every working American walk over to his/her elderly neighbor's house every week and hand them grocery money. At least the money wouldn't have a chance to partially dissolve away before granny gets to the grocery store that way.

SS is a silly program. The fact that they call it insurance angers me, because it is nothing of the sort. It is a scheme that was destined to fail at some point!

Can you show us where the bible says we should take money from other people and give it to those we think are more deserving or in need? Conservatives donate more of their own personal funds to charity by an extreme margin than liberals do.

 

That is the silliness I thought you might be referring to. Right out of the **********s talking points handbook. What are the other two counties you referred to?

What you are posting is :

1) An article from 2005 - before the financial collapse in the markets. Post something proving that there were no changes in 2008 till today.

2) Dishonest in that it does not identify the differences in the return for workers at different income levels!

3) Ridiculous when you consider that workers all over this nation have worked literally decades in state and other plans only to approach retirement and find that either the rules have changed or cities/states cannot and will not honor their payouts. THOSE people then are left reliant on the fallback of the SS.

Here is a more balanced and cogent discussion of Galveston's plan:

Galveston's plan is an EXCELLENT example of the rich convincing a bunch of dolts to do something that will benefit the rich far more than all others. The fact that there are people intellectually compromised enough to fall for this does NOT make it a reasonable or moral or Christian thing to do!!

It most CERTAINLY does not make it something the nation should even consider mimicking! What MIGHT work in a one locale does not necessarily translate to all of the nation well. A great example of that is the socialist deal that Sarah Palin negotiated as Governor of oil rich Alaska.

There the state essentially partnered with oil concerns (on behalf of it's citizens) and shares it profits with each citizen in the form of a check. THAT is about as socialist as it gets--- but it works for the citizens of Alaska (what happened that the idiots in Texas couldn't get a comparable arrangement, I don't know-- maybe they didn't think that socialisty thing was patriotic enough for 'em). There are, however, not enough oil bucks in the country to make it rational for the nation to try to strike a similar deal and pay each and every American.

Again-- what works for a county/state or even region may not work nationally.

 

Using the Galveston Plan as an example no funds are being invested in the stock market. All funds are invested in guarenteed investments. The Galveston Plan, even with its extremely limited investment criteria, is paying 150% and more in retirement benefits when compared to Social Security for it's participants.

While there is risk associated with the private market history has shown that long term diversified investment portfolios in conservative investment accounts and that are age adjusted represent virtually zero overall risk to the investor. The only way such investments can theoretically fail is if the entire US economy collapsed. If that happens then Social Security would also collapse and the likelihood of that happening is virtually nil.

Way too many people that object to the privatization of Social Security apparently have virtually know knowledge related to investing. 401K's and Roth IRA's are highly successful and both invest in the private markets. That's why people invest in them... because they have an unparalled record of success!!! Even with the recession 401K's averaged over 8% return on investment between 2001 and 2010.

 

I'm a card carrying Libertarian and oppose the Tea Party which, if studies are correct, is comprised of about 50% "racists/Religous Right" I would prefer to not be associated with this type of person.

The article was the first one I grabbed simply to present to another member. The Galveston Plan does not invest in the markets and is limited to investments in guarenteed securities such as municiple bonds. The recession did not affect it per se.

To date the lowest retirement benefits the Galveston Plan are equal to 150% of what Social Security pays. Yes, those with higher incomes receive much more than even the highest possible retirement income from Social Security.

Once again I would point out that I don't personally advocate adoption of the Galveston Plan at the national level but do believe it should be used as a model. We can also provide a safety net and I would advocate allowing diversified investment portfolios in conservative mutual funds which is not allowed by the Galveston Plan. Such investments also need to be age adjusted. Basically this follows the 401K/Roth IRA format that is highly successful with no examples of any failures to provide long term investment gains for the individual.

LOL - In short government pension plans that weren't properyly funded and/or managed are failing. Gee, we have the same problem with Social Security today as it is projected to fail in the future unless either taxes for it are increased by about 1/3rd or benefits will need to be cut by 25%. This is for a program that on the average provides poverty level benefits to begin with.

The wealthy neither benefit or lose when it comes to Social Security. It is fundamentally irrelevant to them. It is the average and low income worker that would benefit from privatization and not the wealthy. The wealthy don't need Social Security and even the maximum benefit payment of roughly $25K/yr is merely used to pay for a trip to Maui (or equivalent).

Now an average or low income worker that would receive 150% or more in retirement income would benefit from privatization. As also noted privatizing Social Security nationally could provide greater benefits by allowing long term age adjusted diversified investment portfolios as well as providing a safety net that would ensure that everyone would receive at least as much as the minimum benefits (roughly $7K/yr) that Social Security provides.

BTW the last thing I want is anything based upon "Christian" values of bigotry and discrimination.

True but between the Galveston Plan which is admittedly local and the history of success of 401K's/Roth IRA's which are national we can develop a privatized form of Social Security that has virtually no risk whatsover (excluding a complete collapse of the US economy) and which provides a safety net and a much higher retirement benefit for Americans.

Why is anyone opposed to People receiving more money in retirement than tha paltry poverty level Social Security retirement benefit? That amazes me.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...sonal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/


History of US, SS...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html

RKWM; I doubt access to "oil profits" would have anything to do with their system, or tourism, which is their basic economy. The point however, is these "County Employee's" not all people, opted out when they could and have done quite well.

No one is suggesting SS should be eliminated and I simply support the idea the private sector can provide the service at a much greater level of efficiency.

protectionist; Inflation adjusted, your probably still paying the best possible prices, while staying in a Free Market Capitalist Society. I used Wal Mart, since they were the first major box retailer, using volume purchasing power, to decrease the final retail prices.

The system is going broke and your suggesting raising the amounts paid? Rich people or even the not so rich, don't depend on SS for their total retirement income, most all planning in advance. Why are you insisting they be cut off, simply because other's might not have planned ahead?

 

When you can show me an example of the government not paying the SS checks then we can talk about the government not being reliable. Until then all the "what if's" that the cry-in-their-beers **********'s whine about don't have any basis in reality.

What you are looking for someone to discuss with you is something that exists only in your head. The program is destined to fail because your imagination tells you so and for no other rational fact based reason! FACT: the trajectory is not positive for SS at this time. FICTION: the trajectory cannot be changed in positive ways.

It is one thing to base YOUR life and decisions on a "what if" delusion of your own creation but it is ENTIRELY different to want to base EVERYONE'S lives on YOUR delusion!

SS may have problems down the road. Cogent folks are looking for ways to avoid those problems by shoring up the program. The obvious, easy, and readily doable solutions are all rejected by the delusional squads on the right in an effort at creating a self fullfilling prophesy.

Christ knew nothing of "charities". He didn't conceive of them as being set aside institutions that one would donate money to. He came to teach us to give of ourselves individually, daily, as validation of our faith and humanity.

Giving money was NOT the premiere issue for Christ, now was it? So NO--- he did NOT speak of giving something as WORTHLESS in his kingdom as MONEY. (what an odd question to ask). It speaks enormous VOLUMES that those on the Right are always so quick to suggest that Conservatives give money. It translates readily into Conservatives give JACK!

Christians give love, respect, time, effort, consideration, and much, much more--- just as Christ himself asked them to!! Following what Christ ask is what defines being a Christian!

Those worshipping satan in Christ's name (giving lipservice to Christ persistently) do things like suggesting that no efforts should be made to save 30 year old men in coma's because of lack of health insurance or blattering something that some possible crazed lying lady purportedly said to a nation -- risking the loss of the lives of some young girls.

MOREOVER -- what is it with the persistent "but mommie, the other kids.... " arguments from the "Conservatives"??? So WHAT if they gave more money than the liberals.... would that make it ENOUGH?? The argment you have offered suggests that moral relativism plagues the right. Moral relativists seek out the worst of people and paint things at their worst in order to make their "bad" seem better/good. This seems to be easier for them than just working hard to actually be good.

The only problem with that is that only other moral relativists buy that crock!! Those with actual values have absolutes that don't shift relative to what others do, think, or say.

Liberals nor Conservatives, imho, do enough for the groups of people (and animals and this planet) that Christ himself charged us to sheppard! Real Christians make the effort and consistently hold views that would reflect their desire to do as much as humanly possible to live consistent with God's requests! But-- as I said before-- this is likely more appropriate discussion for another thread.

 

I wanted to address this independently because it's a report from 1999 issued by the Social Security Adminstration that is obviously biased in it's presentation.

An example of this bias can be seen in the following:

We find a bias statement related to the Galveston Plan starting at page 1 where it states that there is a "risk" of participants, their spouse, or dependents outliving the benefits. Perhaps true related to the Galveston Plan but this could easily be addressed under national privatization of Social Security. Private annuities do offer plans that pay for life and do have survivior benefits. While perhaps a failure of the Galveston Plan to require such annunities be used the failure of the Report to address that these types of annuities do exist is fundamentally dishonest if the expressed purpose it to provide possible comparisons between Social Security and the Galveston Plan. Do participants in the Galveston Plan that select an annunity that pays for life and covers their spouse and dependents ever run out of benefits? The answer is no that they do not so long as their spouse and dependents are still eligible.

Next we can look at Chart 1 on Pg 49 that shows comparative "investment returns" for Social Security and the Galveston Plan. What is being omitted is the fact that only excess revenues for Social Security are represented while all of the revenues for the Galveston plan are represented. If we look at 1997, the last year of the report, Social Security had total revenue of $536.2 billion in revenue and $364.8 billion in expedatures. Total capital for Social Security was $536.2 billion but interest is only being recorded on the $171.4 billion surplus for that year or about 32% of the total capital. The chart shows about a 4.2% ROI but in fact, based upon gross capital that would only reflect a 1.344% ROI.

The Report also address "theoretical" instances which don't actually exist when it comes to low income workers. The only place the Report found that a person would have less retirement income was basically if they worked at minimum wage their entire working career and considering that these employees all work for the county that would never happen nor has it ever happened. In fact is that it is highly unlike that anyone would work their entire working career at minimum wage.

As I have also noted repeatedly the privatization of Social Security should include a safety net for very low income workers but remember that they would have most of their retirement paid for with their investments so the government would only be picking up a small percentage of the $7K/yr minimum benefit that they would receive today.

The Report did condemn the Galveston Plan because it isn't portable while Social Security is. Of course privatization of the Social Security would eliminate this issue completely.

In closing we need to merely remember that the Report was specifically intended to suppor Social Security over the Galveston Plan and it wasn't really very good at hiding the bias. The Social Security adminstration would have looked stupid had it done an accurate comparison.

 

Why do people site "bias" as though that is equal to "untrue"?? Is this something taught at Liberty and Regent Universities or something? For bias to be a pertinent argument one first must demonstrate that something is misrepresented in FACT!

Do you have a factual basis for ANY of your statements (including the mindreading that you offered in your last paragraph discussing WHY this was written)??? This should be really really easy because surely you can provide a wealth of examples of those receiving more money than they would in SS.

 

There is absolutely not a ray of light shining between the Libertarians, the Republicans, and the Tea Pary. This is absolutely demonstrated by the fact that the god of Libertarianism is running in the pack of dogs with whatever foibles they have. If Obama should have left his church than those wishing to disassociate themselves from every ounce of bigotry and racism and sexism etc. should do so by AT MINIMUM denouncing those qualities. NOT ONE representative of the so called libertarians has done so. Thus--- what ever you would like to pretend "Libertarian" means is trumped by what those in power use your support to espouse! Like it or not we all are left with the fleas of the dogs we elect to lay down with. If you're okay with bonding with and donating to the racists and bigots--- so be it. Reality bites! Sorry.

When you provide me of an example of the USA not paying out the SS checks each month then we can talk about it being unreliable. Worry about predictions don't make it.

On the other hand I have had conversations with several delivery men and women over the last couple of years who are over 65 and had to return to the job market when the 401K's/Roths were devastated by the financial downturns. This seems NOT to be unusal when you look at the Savings and Loans crisis (related to which John McCain was censured - and repubs still ran him for office) and Enron, and the burst of the tech bubble and the burst of the housing bubble etc. These are not speculations based on predictions. They have occured too much in too many different ways (think Bernie Maddoff) for me to think it won't ever happen again -- THUS HISTORICAL FACT would point to an absolute UNRELIABILITY of 401K/Roth/market/personal investment accounts.

Everytime someone says 401K for me they simply underscore the absolute need for SS!

It is sort of delusional to suggest that most people view or use social security as a retirement plan. Who would chose to retire below the poverty level which is what the average SS income would be. Ironically, those with the greatest benefit (about $2,366.00/mo) would be those who retire at 66 and from age 21 to 66 paid the maximum every year. Not only would this person not be likely to be relying on SS as their retirement plan -- even if they did they would just be a hair above the poverty level!

Any rational person knows that SS is NOT intended as a retirement plan. It is STRICTLY a safety net. It is silly season to compare SS to retirement plans BECAUSE THE OBJECTIVES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! The goal of a retirement plan would be to obtain the maximum monthly benefit for the years of work put in. The goal of SS is to keep elderly people and the disabled from abject poverty should all else fail for them.

It is a shear mean spirited heart and imho, amorality that makes people want to compare the two.

PS: As for Christianity, I am, like you are with your libertarian remark, inclined to want to disassociate myself from those who claim to be Christian and actual, imo, are worshippers of satan. HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE--- while we share the same name (Libertarians and Republicans and **********s don't) we are NOT paying into the same coffers thus nothing I do in support of my faith in any way goes to the crazies faux christians. IF my being a Christian helped them win and election--- I would have to rethink my faith or fight harder to expose them for what they are.

 

RKWM; Without going into ALL the programs, the Federal Government has created in accumulating a 17T$ Debt Limit or a 115T$ future obligation, the point is to prevent Government from defaulting on anything, SS being a minor obligation, compared to servicing the National Debt. How long do you think they can keep on spending A TRILLION PLUS DOLLARS, over what's taken in and pay their bills. No business would be supported though investment, under that scenario....

 

One simple word explains it > GREED.

 

I'm not quite sure of what this is supposed to answer. Is allowing someone that might receive $7K-$8K under the current Social Security program to instead receive $12K/yr through a private investment account to be considered greed? Is raising the average benefit from $13K/yr to $20K/yr or more for the same "investment" dollars in a privatized Social Security program to be considered greed?

 

You should talk to the people who are against paying more taxes because by 2025 every penny of taxes will be used to pay interest on the national debt. Even with a $Trillion in annual spending cuts the national debt, and interest payments on it, will continue to rise. Besides that, a $1Trillion cut in national spending, no matter by who, would toss the nation into a depression which would further reduce federal revenue which would cause more cuts in federal spending etc etc until the economy reached rock bottom.

There are some people who, unbelievably, think this would be a good thing. They have obviously not considered the social ramifications of a 60% unemployment rate. If you are looking to overturn capitalism and private property in the US the best thing you could do to speed it along is pass a balanced budget amendment, drastically cut government spending and pull the safety net out from under the people.

It is most interesting that so many of our well trained infantry soldiers came from poverty and now find themselves unemployed, and unemployable in today's economy. It is not a good idea to discard these people back into the underclass at the same time as removing all hope for the entire class of people they come from.

Forty years ago the Black Panthers arose from a similar cadre in times when there was a concerted public effort to help the people they came from. It will be an interesting experiment to see how this new cadre reacts to the news that, not only did there service give them a way out, but they, and their entire class of people are to be subject to even more deprivation in the richest nation on the planet.

 

Sometimes it's good to reflect on the reasons behind government action and I believe this is relevant when we look at Social Security.

It was born under the FDR administration during the heart of the Depression when a significant percentage of the population was unemployed, had lost or spent their savings and did not have private retirement investments, disability insurance or life insurance. It was never about the fact that private investment accounts, disability insurance and life insurance weren't superior to a government program but instead merely addressed that many people didn't have these protections often because they simply couldn't afford them or chose not to provide for these protections when they could and millions of people were reaching retirement age during this time period of the Depression.

The disability and life "insurance" (survivior) benefits of Social Security are subordinate to the most important feature of Social Security which is the retirement benefit. The fact is that today, just as in the 1930's, many individuals simply don't create or contribute adequitely to a retirement investment program. That new Ipod, flat panel TV or a few beers down at the pub seem to take precedent especially for the young which is when investing for retirement is most important.

If everyone began investing 10% of earnings into a retirement investment portfolio from the day they started working there won't be a need for Social Security today. No one that invests 10% of their income using a conservative investment approach of diversified and age adjusted investments ends up in poverty in their old age. Yes, a safety net might still be required for a few but it would only represent a very small fraction of those receiving or that will be receiving Social Security benefits in the future. The vast majority, if they followed the investment advice of the experts, would have a substantially improved retirement income when they needed it.

When we look at retirees today it's those that did invest privately that live their retirement in relative luxury. Those that didn't invest live in virtual poverty if all they have is a Social Security check to live on. Even at it's maximum benefit of about $26K/yr Social Security barely pays the bills and for those that receive the average benefit of only $13K/yr we have to wonder how they even get by. In reality they don't because they also require food stamps and very possibly housing assistance as well as their Social Security check to get by. Even those that solely depend on a Social Security check during retirement must also have additional financial assistance just to get by even if it's only food stamps.

Those that advocate privatization today do so because of this simply fact. Social Security at best promises poverty level income, even at it's highest benefit level, whereas private retirement investment accounts that follow the well established investment principles of diversification and age adjustment live in relative luxury not requiring additional government assistance. Private investments for retirement, even in the 1930's when Social Security was passed, were always superior to a government welfare program. If all of the population had life-long private retirement investment accounts in the 1930's then there would have been no foundation for creating Social Security in the first place. That is the goal of privatization. To provide a mandatory private investment program by individuals using the same dollars collected today as FICA/Payroll taxes as such investment accounts have always been superior to a government welfare program. They were superior in the 1930's and they remain superior today.

 

You get it, our deficit spending is stimulus spending. Stopping it cold turkey would impact the economy.

Government has created a trap, we are forced to continue deficit spending until the interest rates consume all tax contributions, until everyone that will loan the government money has, until they have printed money into worthlessness.

Wonderful future.....

That trap does have one out. The government can stop spending where it will reduce the economy, but it can where it will grow the economy.

Delay the entry age into SSI and Medicare.

Now most people contribute for 45 years (20 to 65), and draw for 16 (65 to 81). Their income is much higher just prior to retirement, than when first entering the job market.

Each year of delay, reduces the load on SSI and Medicare by 6%, at $1.4T, about $88B. That year of delay also gains from the income and payroll tax from those delayed 1 year. For simplicities sake, assume that is $12B - total of $100B.

Net effect on the economy, positive. Working people keep working. With a higher income, consume more.

Net effect on those ready to retire? Unless they were going to be fired, or were in very poor health, neutral. They work and pay higher taxes for another year. They contribute to their retirement fund for another year.

If they were unemployed, they continue to get unemployment. If they are sick enough to get disability, they get that.

Is there a significant difference between 64 and 65? Between 65 and 70? My dad is 87, and he didn't show his age until after 75.

Do we resolve the $1.4T deficit by delaying SSI & Medicare, until age 79. That question will give the politicians some incentive to cut spending where it is wasted.


Are there other places to cut spending wile improving economy. I know of at least one significant one. How about the rest of you?

 

The problem with Social Security was the steady expansion of coverage. If it remained what it was originally set up as, an insurance against outliving your life expectancy, then it would continue to be a very good program, and would cost far less than it does today.

When it shifted to be a retirement program, the costs began to skyrocket and the taxes began to increase.

Initially the Social Security withholding was 2%, now it is 12%. Originally Social Security didn't kick in until you reached total life expectancy. Now it kicks in over a decade earlier.

Social Security should be pegged to life expectancy. Of course you can't suddenly change things on everyone, so such a change would be phased in. Anyone over about 55 would see no change at all. The age to collect would increase by two years for every five years younger you are until the collection age and life expectancy match up. From then on, Social Security age would be locked in at your life expectancy when you turn 25. That gives you plenty of time to plan and save for your retirement at whatever age you choose.

Costs could then be locked in based on expenses. Social Security withholding could be refunded each year based on actual expenses. Every five years the rate could be adjusted to match actual expenses over the last few years. We would have to increase the rate for the next few years, but pretty soon it would start going back down. We could also write off the Social Security debt and simply stick with a self-funded program.

This would also simplify retirement planning. Currently people have to plan their retirement based on an indefinite lifespan - 80-90 years or longer. With a program like this, people need only to plan to life out their life expectancy and the program will help out if they exceed that span.

 

Must be nice to have such convenient little boxes to put everyone in.

So we wait for the system to crash to admit there is a problem?

There will be a few state employee retirement plans that crash in the next 10 years or so.

Link?

There are people that thought they could retire on the profit from their house(s), or their investment in the stock market.

The problem with Derivatives could have been fixed in 1996, after Long Term Capital Management failed. The housing bubble was allowed to happen due to artificially low interest rates from the Fed and the actions of Fannie and Freddie, who, because of prior improprieties, needed friends in Congress, and the Democrats (primarily Barney Frank) provided protection, for a price.

If you want safe, put you money into CD's. That requires a lot more on a monthly basis. But if you want to retire 1 year fore every 3 you work, you need to put a lot of money aside.

That is because SSI is a defined benefits program, paid out today, from taxes collected today. It is a Ponzi scheme.

In your view, what happens if the government can't borrow, and / or the interest rates on their debt increased to a more typical 6% to 8%?

Do all the other programs get gutted to maintain SSI?

Today Medicare pays out over twice what each individual paid in - how is that sustainable?

So they need to rely on that evil 401K?

Why not petition the government to set SSI at a living wage, maybe $5000 a month?

Only union retirement plans, and some old line companies with "retirement plans" base benefits on years worked.

Most people get a monthly benefit based on how much they saved.

If the goal of SSI was to keep old people out of poverty, why isn't there a means test. Like welfare, only those that need it, get it. Do we need 54M recipients? With 30% of them not retired?

The goal of SSI is to get votes. Instead of preventing a problem by adjusting the onset age up (it started at 65, with an average lifespan of 62), with lifespan, it became a Democratic talking point - those evil Republican's want to take your SSI, you paid into it, you are owed it.

Is this another attempt to silence debate because disagreeing with your dogma is evil? All I can say is wow....

 

I agree.

The best way I see to get there is to delay the start age by 1 year, every 2 years. That would get us to a start age of 75 in 18 years.

Drop the number getting SSI from 54M to maybe 15M, with the other 39M still paying into the system.

 

I doubt that all of those people would continue to pay into the system. Many would probably plan and save for retirement and would still leave the workforce by 65, they just wouldn't be counting on the taxpayers to pay for it.

 

I suspect those with enough retirement will, those that don't, or worried they don't, will continue to work.

65 isn't near as old now, as it was in 1930.

 

Not to ignore the rest of the post I wanted to focus on this anacdotal statement.

All investment experts recommend diversified investment portfolios that are adjusted for age especially as someone nears retirement age. By the time someone is in their mid-fifties this would mean a very small percentage of investments in the stock markets with more focus on guarenteed bond and commodities like gold and silver. By retirement age virtually all investments should be in guarenteed investments such as municiple bonds, T-Bills and commodities like gold and silver.

Anyone that lost a large precentage of their retirement investment portfolio during the recent recession was not following the advice of moving their investment to fixed-income investments. Had they done that they would be in the same boat I'm in at age 62. The recession hit but 50% of my retirement portfolio was in gold and silver. I not only didn't lose a dime but made a huge amount of profit on paper as gold is over $1800 right now.

So an anacdotal story of someone that fails to follow simply advice from the experts is really irrelevant. A privatized form of Social Security could mandate diversification of the investments as well as age-adjustment to those investments. It can also mandate a "life-time" annuity for actual retirement with survivior benefits if/as required so the idea that someone would "run out of money" is false.

 

reallist42; My point to RKWM, was that we are at that point already and for you, that point was reached with "PayGo" in the Congressional Rules. Then servicing the Debt, paying that interest, takes priority over SS or any other domestic/social obligation, be it welfare or some entitlement program.

Your preaching to the choir (I think); I agree with the BBA and believe it should be put to the States and believe would be ratified, although as PayGo has been ignored, most electable Congress's in the future will define virtually everything they wish, as an emergency. Repeal Obamacare, Dodd/Franks and frankly most every regulation conceived from 2006 on, starting over if needed but with clarity, no attorney/tax consultant would be needed. Produce a budget, based on the previous years GDP and expected revenues (zero base line), not an annual 8% increase from the last budget and cut welfare programs 25% (stiffening eligibility), entitlement 10% (increase co-pay's). Increase charitable deduction limits, maybe even adding a few "Faith Based Initiative" programs and let the private sector charitable organization do the "safety net" in their efficient manner. I could go on, but think my point made...

 

it definately needs to be modified!