There's nothing like first-hand experience with something to really learn about it's problems. My hubby and I decided to take early Social Security retirement and just completed the paperwork. There is so much wrong with SS, it isn't even funny. And it's too bad President Bush's ideas for change early in his administration were blocked....mainly by Democrats. Here's some of the problems I see, now that I'm there:

1) My SS funds need to be MINE. I should OWN them; not the government. When I put aside a certain amount of my earnings in a 401k through a company during my lifetime, that account is OWNED by me. I have no restrictions on what I can do in retirement regarding my funds. IF I die early, my heirs would receive it. Not so with the federal gov't having possession of my SS funds. If I died early; they keep it.

2) With the federal gov't owning my Social Security funds, they are able to tell me how to live in retirement. In other words, I am only allowed to make a minimum amount of wages in retirement, or else I lose part of my SS. Actually, over the minimum amt, I start to lose 1/2 of my SS benefit.

3) The amount I will receive is NOTHING compared to what I would be getting in a payout had I been allowed to put even a portion of it in investments of my choosing.

And why is it the legislators turned Bush's ideas down? Because THEY want to control our money. They want to be able to spend our money. They want to set the rules for HOW we should live in order to get OUR money in retirement.

Do they live under the same rules? No way. They have a pension that is OWNED by them!!! They have no restrictions on how much money they can make in order to get their pensions.

We got the gov't to change their ways regarding immigration because of OUR backlash. We should do the exact same regarding OUR money that the gov't keeps in the form of what they call, "Social Security."

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

Once again, that's because SS isn't a government-run 401(k); it's retirement insurance. Those who die early subsidize those who don't. It's like life insurance; those who don't die subsidize those who do.

I agree this is an obnoxious -- and needlessly complicated -- part of the law. It's a holdover from when one goal of SS was to get older people out of the workforce so there would be jobs for younger people, so retirees were penalized for working. This provision should simply be scrapped, and retirees should be allowed to earn as much as they want.

#1, show the math on that one. The payout depends in large part on what number you use for life expectancy. Funds you own can run out; SS lasts as long as you live.

#2, see my reply to your first complaint. SS is insurance, not a 401(k).

__________________
Man up.

It's not at all like insurance. If I die with an insurance policy, my listed beneficiary gets the payout.....OFTEN more than I've paid into it. NOT so with SS.

That's why it should be OWNED by the people; not the gov't. Anytime the federal gov't is involved, they try to control our lives.

My private funds will last through my 90th year...AND my husband's 90th year PLUS will leave money to my son and grandson. We did not even start serious saving until the early 1980's. Had I been allowed to do the same with MY SS funds, I'd be even better off.

It's neither. It's a joke.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

Okay...so you want all the money you put in to go into some sort of account. Now how exactly do we pay for those people retiring now?

I know you neo-cons like trillions in debt but I don't.

Then STOP spending MY money!! All those years they take out of our checks a sum FOR Social Security. And yet......it's not really there. It gets spent by the legislators on OTHER THINGS.

What if the bankers where you have a savings account placed restrictions on what you could do with your money? What if they spent it and then said, "Well, we'll give you part of it, but only if you agree NOT to make "x" amount in wages.....otherwise, we'll only give you 1/2 of it??? NOT only do you get ALL your money back from a bank, you get it WITH interest.....AND there are no restrictions on it. That's because YOU own it; it's YOUR money. If you die, your heirs get it. Not so with SS.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

It's exactly like insurance. To use your example of life insurance, you're the beneficiary and you get paid for living, not dying.

Insurance. Insurance. Insurance. Not equity.

Good for you, but that doesn't answer my question. Add up the money you've put into SS over the years and add a reasonable return (say, 8%) on that money. Divide it by your monthly SS payout, and tell me how long it would last.

Even using your "until I'm 90" figure, what happens if you live until 91? SS keeps paying out -- your funds, by contrast, will be exhausted. That's why many financial planners recommend using 97 as a baseline figure -- not because most people live that long, but because if you do you don't want to be a pauper.

The nice thing about insurance like SS is you don't have to guess how long you'll live -- and either have less spending money while you're alive (because you guessed too long) or run out of money before you die (because you guessed too short). In the former case, you do get to pass what's left down to your kids. In the latter, you're just screwed.

__________________
Man up.

I said I could live til 90 PLUS still have lots of money left over to leave my son and grandson. Should I live longer than that, I'll just continue to use some more of MY money.

OR you can be like my sister who died at age 48 and her sons got NONE.....ZERO, ZIP, NADA......of the money she paid in to her wonderful "insurance" policy called Social Security. The federal gov't kept it.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

Again, good for you, but you're still not answering my question. I'm not interested in the extent of all your private savings -- only the amount of money that went to SS over the years. The point is to find out at how much money you could have turned that into had you invested privately -- ignoring, for now, that SS carries zero investment risk while in a 401(k)-type account you carry all of it -- and then find out how long that money would have lasted at current SS payout rates.

Yep. That's how insurance works. Right now, for instance, I'm carrying something like $800,000 in 20-year term life insurance, so if I die while the kids are young my wife can pay off the house, quit working if she wants to, and raise the children and send them to college.

But in 20 years, if I haven't died yet, the insurance will lapse because we'll no longer need it -- and I'll have nothing to show for 20 years of premium payments. Except knowing that had the unfortunate happened, my family would have been provided for.

Your sister died young, and so didn't use the benefits. But had she lived, they would be there. SS is old-age *insurance* to make sure you'll have at least a minimal retirement income no matter how long you live.

__________________
Man up.

I just hate being insulted by the Government! They don't think I am capable of taking care of my own finances... they thing we are all too stupid to plan for our future... I do just fine... I would like to opt out of SS.
Look at Galveston Texas...
http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~prc/PRC/WP/wp99-22.pdf
Look at Argentina as well...
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1065&sequence=0

I don't like bad laws designed for the few that end up controlling the masses.

OG

But that's one of the main points: at this rate, it will NOT be there for the younger ones paying into it now. For me....yes. I'm concerned more about those coming up who will pay into something they do NOT own and therefore have no say-so in how it's managed.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)