Here is some quick reality. My Social Security "account" has $200,000. If I had been able to invest it, I would now have $966,000. If I drew out the equivalent of my current maximum Social Security allotment ($30,000/YR), I would have $1.59 million for my heirs when I hit my life expectancy. I am missing about $766,000 today and will have nothing when I die.

If you assume that the government took half of my contributions for those “in need” I would still have $483,000 dollars today. If I drew my maximum of $30,000 a year, I would have $879,000 for my heirs at life expectancy.

If you assume the government took seventy five percent of my contributions for those “in need”, I would now have $241,000. If I drew my maximum of $30,000 a year, I would have nothing left after 8 years and would require $360,000 to reach my life expectancy.

I will have more than $200,000 in my “account” when I begin to draw Social Security. If we assume it is double or $400,000, I will still be “short” $200,000. That is the amount you other dupes will pay to support me.

If you go back to the second paragraph, I could have supported some other poor soul fully and still been better off than I am now or will be. The system as currently designed makes no sense. What would make sense would be to allow me to fully fund my own retirement. Assuming that the neoliberals would never allow that to happen, then we go to Plan B.

Require everyone to contribute to Social Security. Half goes to the non-existent Trust Fund for the government to squander and the other half goes to a self owned but mandatory account that can be passed on to heirs but not until the owner no longer requires it. This would be easy to maintain and would actually benefit more people than the current system..

is the Cookie Jar for Entitlements

Social Security is supposed to be a safety net for older people who are no longer able to work, and don't have other resources to rely upon.

Had you invested in an IRA on a pre-tax basis, you would have lowered your tax rate and been able to invest as you saw fit. Then, you would have the profits(if any) of your investments AND Social Security.

So quit bitching about what you don't have!

That is NOT what my mother thinks. You are naive if you think the majority of the American public believes that either. They believe it is their retirement, not a "safety net". Be realistic. Support something that might actualy work.

RANGER 82, your're certainly more optimistic about your life expetancy then I was some years back. : - >

I applaud your personal fiscal smarts and investment ability. However, as a leader of soldiers, how many of them can't even balance a check book?

You can see beyond the FEBA as to where I'm going here?

When we made check to bank mandatory for everyone in the Army, it did cause some problems. Most, but not all, soldiers can deal with it. People are smart enough. If you create a solid plan and make it woth their while, they will do the right thing. Again, not everyone but then you can't fix stupid. There are a few soldiers who still believe that having checks means they have money in their accounts.

had he been able to invest his social security contributions himself, is silly and naive.

Here are just a few reasons why:

1. It's naive to assume that the 17%+ in employee/employer contributions would otherwise just magically shown up on our paychecks, for us to invest. The labor market simply doesn't work that way.

2. It's naive to assume that even IF that 17%+ did exist, we would voluntarily invest it all.

3. It's naive to assume that in the absence of the social security safety net, our taxes wouldn't have to be raised elsewhere, to attend to the inevitable social needs that society would demand be addressed.

4. It's naive to assume that if the massive pot of dollars represented by social security, were instead a part of the private securities pool, we could expect the same rates of return we can expect from the private securities market now.

5. And it's especially naive, given that social security is an INSURANCE program rather than an investment program, to assume a "rate of return" when we can't possbily know for sure, when we're going to draw on the program. For instance...if a 35-year old man with a wife and 3 kids, up and dies, what's HIS rate of return? You might suggest that since he died, it's zero. But...I don't imagine his wife and kids would see it that way, and I'm sure they'd be most grateful for the inheritance he left them.

Let's hear your calculation.

Really? If the mandatory contributions are mandatory now why would they not be in the future? Why would they not "show up"? My account "history" is factual and is exactly what would have happened. Can I predict the future? No. But short of an economic disaster it is probably right.

appear to take their own "hindsight" investment analyses seriously. In any case, it's always fun watching people play this game with themselves. George tried shilling social security piratization a few years back. He fell flat on his face. The MAIN reason he did so, was because he and his fellow hucksters simply couldn't make his scheme pencil out. All they had to sell, was hyperbole, platitudes, and shopworn canards.

Funny thing is...the abject and near universal rejection of George's scam notwithstanding, I'm guessing that IF his cabal had been able to come up with even a half-assed analysis, using real numbers, that hinted that his scheme was in the people's favor, they might actually have considered it!

Well I, for one, am not going to rely on Social Security to fund my retirement. I doubt seriously that it will be available when I am ready to retire anyway. Maybe if people were actually taught how to manage their money, we wouldn't see so many people relying exclusively on social Security. I blame it on the fact that while they are actually in the learning and earning stage, most people do not know the difference between 'wants and needs.'

The social security and medicaid moneys are not considered part of America's budget, and is completely separate in all respects.

Apparently you believe the past never happened? Most people who even remotely understand investing use past performance as a guide versus predicting an unknown future. History or supposition. You can decide on your own.

You're not the first person, nor will you be the last, who says that he's not confident that social security will be there when he needs it, so he's going to rely on his own investments. But...there's just one little fly in your oinment, albeit a pretty mighty one!

Now for sure...we should all be investing in our own individual retirement accounts. Social Security is an insurance program - posing as an annuity. It's not an investment program, so if we wish to enjoy our retirements at somewhere above the poverty line, we'd damn well better invest! So...where's the problem with your argument? Well.....the Social Security obligation is founded in U.S. Treasuries - the "full faith and credit of the United States". As it stands now, U.S. Treasuries are the most solid and respected investment vehicle in the entire world. The U.S. has NEVER reneged on its debts - ever. That's one of the reasons why we enjoy such greater access to capital, than much of the rest of the world.

But...you're suggesting that the U.S. MAY renege on this obligation sometime in your future...and you'll be falling back on your wonderous private securities. What you seem to be ignoring though, is that U.S. Treasuries could not and would not, go bust in a vacuum. In fact...for umpteen reasons, U.S. Treasuries would be the LAST investment vehicle to go belly up. And in fact, the checks you'd have been receiving from your private security fund would be returned NSF before your Social Security check ever did.

I have quite a bit more than what you describe you have invested in Social Security (somewhat erroneously) invested in a 401K plan. Because of the generosity of the company I worked for (my wife worked for the same organization so we had quite a bit invested in both 401k plans). My financial planner showed me in no uncertain terms that I would have the ability to retire at age 56 and maintain my income at the time.

Then little george happened.

Now things could turn around if we make the right choices in this upcoming election, but even with a robust economy, I have a feeling that I will have to work longer than I planned and still have to rely on Social Security.

Don't count your eggs unless you actually have eggs, and a 401K is not eggs.