The government couldn't but the big boys would and the personal accounts would face the same fate as 401k, providing trading profits for the big boys. Do you know any individual 401k holder who recovered from the .com fiasco?

yes I agree, history has a short half life.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

There are such things as safe financial instruments. Government bonds, class AAA corporate bonds, interest annuities, savings accounts, etc. I believe this was the idea, versus the stock market, where it can be very risky.

The point is: Investment into "safe" financial instruments would guarantee a much better return that throwing all of it into social security.

History has proven that. The government "always" gets into it, for wars, & other things they want done. The average pay-out is only 2% over a lifetime, that is if you're lucky. Right now, SS will go bankrupt in about 20 years. Right now, they are going to cut back benefit pay-outs, raise the retirement age, etc. Take a look at your paycheck, & realise that your employer doubles what you pay in to social security & medicare. Then take a look at your social security statement to see what you're going to get when you retire. It's ridiculous.

So really, where would you want your money to be at when you retire? You wouldn't have to ask me that twice.

Good call. Im going to stop paying my bills so the govt will bail me out.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

That's a safety net for those who don't generate enough income to plan for retirement. To give them more disposable income or the choice of investments would be throwing it to the wind and still require that the government subsidize them when they're no longer capable of producing income. SS won't go anywhere, it'll just take more from the work force that remains after baby boomer retirement.

If you want social security to remain solvent place it in trust status where government can't sweep it into the general fund to avoid looking even more stupid with their irresponsibility.

jviehe and Oreo those are great ideas but government bailout are reserved mostly for for billion dollar corporations.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I believe you'll find that the entire Social Security surplus is invested by law in US government bonds.

The reason the payout is low is because Social Security is an insurance plan, not a savings plan. It provides disability benefits, survivor benefits as well as retirement benefits.
It has the lowest administrative cost load of any pension fund in the world.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Really, cause last I checked we spend 1.5 trillion year on bailing out the poor?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Check again.

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

To be precise, it is a Ponzi scheme.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

A woman named Ida May Fuller , from Ludlow, Vermont was the first recipient of monthly Social Security benefits

Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime (she lived to be a 100) she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

The Social Security Act was ostensibly a fund to pay pensions, but it doubled as a hidden tax to fund a Treasury reserve fund for the purpose of cloaking tax increases and higher government spending. "Contributors" to Social Security do not receive the returns from the money they paid into the "fund" in the past. Rather, just as in a Ponzi Scheme, they are paid from the funds of current contributors (taxpayers), and these taxpayers will in turn be paid from the taxes paid by the generation that follows them. In other words, its purpose is the redistribution of income, not investment toward the production of new wealth.

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

Good post.

Too bad most Americans do not want to hear the truth.

In my opinion, social security is the MAIN reason why our government is allowing a flood of illegal immigration. We need the population growth to help fund social security. Even though most illegal immigrants do not fund social security, their children will and immigrants are responsible for almost all of the population growth of the USA.

Without huge increases in immigration, social security would not even be able to pay a small percentage of future promises.

Many people think that government assistance is an effort to help people, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is all about controlling the people.

Social security is one of the most successful government programs ever.
It's goal was to eliminate senior poverty, when it began 90% of senior citizens in the US lived in poverty, today that number is reversed.
It had to start somewhere, and the first people who qualified did very well.
But just because you can come up with an anecdote, it doesn't change the fact that Social Security has spared hundreds of millions of Americans the horror of living out their last days in abject misery.
And what about countries that have privatized their retirement plans?
Chile rethinks its privatized pension system - International Herald Tribune

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I agree that S.S. should be put in a fund where the government cannot get their hands on it. But, even though proposed by various politicians over the decades, that has never happened.

As far as other securities. These type of accounts could be strickly regulated, to where individuals, could not draw them out.

I am an employer. I have no problems paying a portion of an employees social security deposit, into a safe financial instrument that they cannot get into, until their of age. I would not agree to hand it over to employees based on the premise that they would deposit it into a safe financial instrument. It has to be regulated. Financial institutions can regulate that portion, not the government.

The very first retirees of social security, paid no more than $25.00 per year for it. It then gradually increased to where it is today. However, the first lucky ones to draw upon social security, amounted to billions & billions of payout on very little investment into the fund.

This is the problem. Today, employer/employee contributions into social security are 12.4% for social security & medicare .124% or a total of 15.3% of GROSS wages.

That means for every $100.00 an employee earns, $15.30 is deposited for social security & medicare taxes. For average income of $45000.00 per year, that means the employee/employer contribution is $6885.00 per year. That's along way from $25.00 per year.

The problem is: The largest generation in U.S. history--(baby boomers) are now starting to retire. They will not enjoy the same benefits that their parents did, even though they paid in significantly more.

While at the same time, we have to be concerned about younger workers, who get to flip the bill for all of these baby boomers.

They will either have to raise taxes on social security & medicare benefits to the younger generation, or they will have to dramatically cut benefits to those who are nearing their retirement years. The benefit cutting is already going on, & the age for retirement has moved it's dock. "The ship is not coming in."

To ignore the problem is just absurd. I feel the best way to handle the situation, in order to secure a decent retirement for younger workers, is to establish a program where they will be able to put just 2% into a "managed" safe financial instrument. A place they can't get too it, just like social security. The difference just in 1%-or 2% difference in return over a lifetime of work is enormous.

The problem with putting it into a fund is you take trillions out of the economy. You simply cant have that much money doing nothing. Instead, we should just vary the tax rate such that only enough is collected to pay out current benefits. This keeps the most money in the hands of the people. And of course you have no problem paying a portion of your employees SS, as you simply pass that down in costs. Either you pay your employees less, or raise your prices to make up for it.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson