Beating Social Security

[rightwinger]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth, someone who is 35 hasn't

The difference is that while the 35 year old has not accumulated much wealth, he is still working and drawing an income. Granny has not. She may own her home but relies on Social Security to pay the bills.
What we are doing is taking money from those still in the workforce to pay for those who no longer are. Eventually, your turn will come and someone will support you.

So it is OK to take from people who are in poverty to give to those who aren't remotely close to poverty.

The rest of your comment seems out of sync with the basic math of the system. Eventually, gravity pulls the system into a blackhole whether it is my turn when it happens or not is a matter of luck. That is a poor way to plan for retirement.

Yes, that is how it works
It is OK to take from people with the understanding that they will eventually be on the receiving end. Those in poverty will eventually receive much more in benefits than they paid in. Social Security is weighed to provide more of a liveable benefit to the lower wage earners

The predictions of a "blackhole" have been made for 80 years and Social Security is still solvent and will remain so. Social Security is a safety net and not intended to be your sole source of retirement. But even if it is, you will not starve

 

[rightwinger]

Why do we have Social Security the way we do?

Prior to 1935 there was no planned retirement for most Americans. Their plan consisted of working as long as you could and hope one of your children would take care of you

When the Depression hit in 1929, family finances were wrecked, nesteggs were gone, children could not afford to take care of elderly parents. FDR had to do something immediately

Implementing a savings plan for Social Security would have meant waiting until 1960 before the first retirees could start drawing a benefit. It did nothing to help those that desperately needed it in 1935

So a plan where current workers paid for the benefits of those who retired was the best option

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Why do we have Social Security the way we do?

Prior to 1935 there was no planned retirement for most Americans. Their plan consisted of working as long as you could and hope one of your children would take care of you

When the Depression hit in 1929, family finances were wrecked, nesteggs were gone, children could not afford to take care of elderly parents. FDR had to do something immediately

Implementing a savings plan for Social Security would have meant waiting until 1960 before the first retirees could start drawing a benefit. It did nothing to help those that desperately needed it in 1935

So a plan where current workers paid for the benefits of those who retired was the best option

Fairytales at best.

"FDR had to do something immediately"

By 1950 only 15% of those over 65 were eligible for benefits.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

throwing granny into the street is evil

If you knew much, you'd know that S.S. has been effectively doing that since it started.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why do we have Social Security the way we do?

Prior to 1935 there was no planned retirement for most Americans. Their plan consisted of working as long as you could and hope one of your children would take care of you

When the Depression hit in 1929, family finances were wrecked, nesteggs were gone, children could not afford to take care of elderly parents. FDR had to do something immediately

Implementing a savings plan for Social Security would have meant waiting until 1960 before the first retirees could start drawing a benefit. It did nothing to help those that desperately needed it in 1935

So a plan where current workers paid for the benefits of those who retired was the best option

Fairytales at best.

"FDR had to do something immediately"

By 1950 only 15% of those over 65 were eligible for benefits.

And that 15% were not the poorest elderly around.

While I don't like the concept at the federal level, this is one I have come to accept as a necessary evil.

But it has become another example of how the uneducated (and you'll notice RWer uses the Saul Alinksy method of posting the same crap hoping someone will see one of his posts and fall into the idiot trance it is designed to induce.

Something was needed for the elderly. They were already struggling when the great depression hit.

Our industrialization and urbanization had marginalized them. They were not prepeared, nor were their families.

That said, people today don't really seem to care about taking care of their parents like they used to. Now, it's up to granny and grandpa to figure out how to get across the finish line without much support from their cokehead offspring.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Bingo.....

And it's only going to get worse thanks to our current policies.

When Social Security was first created, and even today, the S.S. administration states flat out that it is supposed to be a supplement. They come out and frankly say this should not be your primary retirement income.

One thing have not seen good data on is the distribution of household incomes over 65 through the entire spectrum.

I think there are many seniors who are at the bottom because they chose not to listen and now only collect S.S.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do we have Social Security the way we do?

Prior to 1935 there was no planned retirement for most Americans. Their plan consisted of working as long as you could and hope one of your children would take care of you

When the Depression hit in 1929, family finances were wrecked, nesteggs were gone, children could not afford to take care of elderly parents. FDR had to do something immediately

Implementing a savings plan for Social Security would have meant waiting until 1960 before the first retirees could start drawing a benefit. It did nothing to help those that desperately needed it in 1935

So a plan where current workers paid for the benefits of those who retired was the best option

Fairytales at best.

"FDR had to do something immediately"

By 1950 only 15% of those over 65 were eligible for benefits.

January 31, 1940 Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

throwing granny into the street is evil

Today according to research from the Fed and Census, the wealthiest of all age demographics is households headed by someone 65 and older. The poorest households headed by someone 35 and younger. Poverty in the 35 and younger set is at record highs - which means that children growing up in poverty is .... at record highs. So you think throwing granny into the street is evil. That isn't what we are doing. We are taking money from families who are in poverty, and giving it to people who aren't remotely close. That isn't evil that is the greatest accomplishment of government?

Older people have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth, someone who is 35 hasn't

The difference is that while the 35 year old has not accumulated much wealth, he is still working and drawing an income. Granny has not. She may own her home but relies on Social Security to pay the bills.
What we are doing is taking money from those still in the workforce to pay for those who no longer are. Eventually, your turn will come and someone will support you.

You completely misread his post because you can't get the far left blinders off your eyes so they can educated your tiny little brain.

 

[rightwinger]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why do we have Social Security the way we do?

Prior to 1935 there was no planned retirement for most Americans. Their plan consisted of working as long as you could and hope one of your children would take care of you

When the Depression hit in 1929, family finances were wrecked, nesteggs were gone, children could not afford to take care of elderly parents. FDR had to do something immediately

Implementing a savings plan for Social Security would have meant waiting until 1960 before the first retirees could start drawing a benefit. It did nothing to help those that desperately needed it in 1935

So a plan where current workers paid for the benefits of those who retired was the best option

Fairytales at best.

"FDR had to do something immediately"

By 1950 only 15% of those over 65 were eligible for benefits.

January 31, 1940 Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54.

So what ?

Was this supposed to prove something ?

Did you even comprehend what was stated ?

 

[rightwinger]

Why do we have Social Security the way we do?

Prior to 1935 there was no planned retirement for most Americans. Their plan consisted of working as long as you could and hope one of your children would take care of you

When the Depression hit in 1929, family finances were wrecked, nesteggs were gone, children could not afford to take care of elderly parents. FDR had to do something immediately

Implementing a savings plan for Social Security would have meant waiting until 1960 before the first retirees could start drawing a benefit. It did nothing to help those that desperately needed it in 1935

So a plan where current workers paid for the benefits of those who retired was the best option

Fairytales at best.

"FDR had to do something immediately"

By 1950 only 15% of those over 65 were eligible for benefits.

January 31, 1940 Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54.

So what ?

Was this supposed to prove something ?

Did you even comprehend what was stated ?

It shows that Social Security was structured so that retirees could start drawing within a few years rather than having to wait 25 or more years to accumulate a savings plan

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why do we have Social Security the way we do?

Prior to 1935 there was no planned retirement for most Americans. Their plan consisted of working as long as you could and hope one of your children would take care of you

When the Depression hit in 1929, family finances were wrecked, nesteggs were gone, children could not afford to take care of elderly parents. FDR had to do something immediately

Implementing a savings plan for Social Security would have meant waiting until 1960 before the first retirees could start drawing a benefit. It did nothing to help those that desperately needed it in 1935

So a plan where current workers paid for the benefits of those who retired was the best option

Fairytales at best.

"FDR had to do something immediately"

By 1950 only 15% of those over 65 were eligible for benefits.

January 31, 1940 Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54.

So what ?

Was this supposed to prove something ?

Did you even comprehend what was stated ?

It shows that Social Security was structured so that retirees could start drawing within a few years rather than having to wait 25 or more years to accumulate a savings plan

And you just throw red herrings out all over the place.

Everyone understands that something was needed in 1930. If you are not familiar with it, there were other more drastic income redistriubtion plans on the table such as the Townshend plant which was beyond stupid (giving the elderly more in payments from the government than most of them every saw from their employer).

Social Insurance had already been instituted in many countries.

This wasn't a "new" idea.

But you still don't get that even back then, S.S. didn't do much for the very very poor.

Ida got something...not everyone did. As has been stated, not everyone over 65 qualified.

 

[rightwinger]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

I still don't see you adressing the problem I identified before. Your plan works OK for those just entering the workforce. But where does the money come from to pay off those who are now receiving SS and those who have been paying in for decades? It is a substantial sum of money...where does it come from if workers start paying in to private accounts?

 

[JakeStarkey]

RW owns Sun Devil, no ifs ands or buts. Sun Devil addresses nothing except his strange thoughts.

Sun Devil rides to the libertarian wind on his own unicorn of personalization of retirement incomes, as if we don't have several thousand private firms doing that along with all the civil service programs.

Social insurance is why most elderly do not live in poverty today. Sun Devil knows that before it the majority of the elderly died in poverty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sun Devil, run my little man, run. RW is after you! Stop and cash your social security check first, though.

 

[rightwinger]

RW owns Sun Devil, no ifs ands or buts. Sun Devil addresses nothing except his strange thoughts.

Sun Devil rides to the libertarian wind on his own unicorn of personalization of retirement incomes, as if we don't have several thousand private firms doing that along with all the civil service programs.

Social insurance is why most elderly do not live in poverty today. Sun Devil knows that before it the majority of the elderly died in poverty.

I happen to support personal retirement accounts, it is a great idea

But there is nothing stopping you from establishing a tax free retirement account right now. But funneling money away from Social Security into private accounts just means we have to somehow make up for that debt to existing retirees.

Nobody seems able to tell me how that is done

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

It is going to be difficult to give you numbers to compare when your list doesn't have hard numbers. 5 and 6 seem to be a wash. #7 sounds great but it will save you a very small amount.

Today SS gets 10.6 (it is about to get closer to 10 because of DI). So you are looking at 1/2 percent going to a private account and 9.5 percent going to SS. At 1/2 percent a typical worker will get to $1,000,000 somewhere around 70 years.

These figures are aggressive. The worker starts @ 28K, and gets 3% real raises for 45 years. He invests the money 100% in stocks earning 6.5% real. After 45 years, he has about $529,000. What are you going to do for the minimum wage worker?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you want to "beat" Social Security, you have to come up with a solution that is better.

All the proposals I have seen assume Social Security is just torn up and we start from scratch. We can't do that. Hundreds of millions of Americans have already paid in or are now living off of Social Security. Any proposal to "beat" Social Security would have to provide a methodology to transition off of Social Security while you move to some sort of savings plan

Hard to do that without raising withholding or slashing benefits

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

It is going to be difficult to give you numbers to compare when your list doesn't have hard numbers. 5 and 6 seem to be a wash. #7 sounds great but it will save you a very small amount.

Today SS gets 10.6 (it is about to get closer to 10 because of DI). So you are looking at 1/2 percent going to a private account and 9.5 percent going to SS. At 1/2 percent a typical worker will get to $1,000,000 somewhere around 70 years.

These figures are aggressive. The worker starts @ 28K, and gets 3% real raises for 45 years. He invests the money 100% in stocks earning 6.5% real. After 45 years, he has about $529,000. What are you going to do for the minimum wage worker?

Or when the market crashes and take 18 years just to get back to zero.