I do the same and my company does the same. Additionaly, my company also has profit sharing. I have also found myself in similar situations as you; finding myself the only person under the age of 40 in my office that pays attention to what is happening with his/her 401k.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Yes, and Enron had self-produced glowing annual reports up 'til the very end themselves. If one wants to believe in the solvency of SS, I can see where these charts could provide fodder for doubts of the doom-sayers, but there is no actual proof that they are wrong mixed in with the evidence that they are right.

The SSA is happy to send me a letter every year with large type saying "When you retire, you'll get $X/month, and you've only had to contribute $YK!" Conveniently burying in the small print the fact that X is based on continued 'contributions' for another 20 yrs, which are not reflected in Y, and with only a passing mention that both the SS cash flow and fictitious 'trust fund' are expected to go negative in my lifetime. Hardly something to inspire trust.

You mean because all we have to do is go ask the tooth fairy for our trust funds back? If you want to actually See the trust fund, look for letter from your bank at the beginning of the month labelled "Bank Statement" because those IOUs will be paid by you, and me, and us, in the form of higher taxes. If something can be considered solvent purely on the basis of increasing taxes to cover the costs, then we can declare all the financial woes in our country solved right now!

The crisis doesn't even start in 10 yrs - It starts now, because we'll have less and less 'SS slush fund' money available to prop up our other Unconstitutional spending programs long before SS becomes a net expense.

Heck, I don't expect to see a penny of my SS "contributions" and I'm 40!

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I think that we need to re-think all of our spending, as a nation, not just Social Security. I think that everyone who was sold into SS from the get-go (this would be the boomers, including my own folks), should be allowed to draw. But anyone under the age of 40 should know better than to rely on SS, and act accordingly.

But, then again, I think we should limit the scope of all of our welfare programs, to help only those who need it. I would like to see means testing for social security. I would also like to see foreign aid eliminated, corporate bailouts eliminated, and the coming mortgage bailout eliminated. I think that if we took these steps, we could make good on our obligations to our citizens, and pay down our debt. It's what a responsible business would do, so why can't our government. Oh, and Karl, I'm six months away from the big 4-0, and I don't expect to see social security, either.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

I'm sure some of these numbers are off due to rounding, assumptions, differing source dates, and ignoring inflation factors, but here's my general roadmap to national solvency in 20-50 years:


Current US Government annual outlays: $2500B - $825B Constitutional outlays, $925B Social Security/Medicare/Retirement Outlays, $750B other unconstitutional outlays

Current US Government annual income: $2175B - $950B Income Tax, $800B SS-related taxes, $275B Corp Taxes, $150B other tariffs, excises, & other taxes


Target Outlays, Short Term: $2125B - $825B Constitutional Outlays, $925B SS+, $375B other

Constitutional outlays to be held steady by selected trimming and reallocation to higher priority items. All SS+ benefits schedules will be frozen, with elegibility requirements to be gradually tightened. Other Unconstitutional programs and expenses should be aggressively phased out or cut

Target Income, Short Term: $2081B - $855B Income Taxes, $720B SS+, $247B Corp Taxes, $165B other tariffs, excises, & other taxes, $70 B - 1% tax on debt initiation, $24 B - 1% surtax on all imports; 2% on imported petroleum

Income tax rates (including SS and Corp taxes) will be decreased gradually as alternate revenues increase. Overall excise taxes will increase either by rate increases or additional sources like currently-illegal drugs. Fiscal responsibility and energy efficiency will be promoted with new tarrifs and excise taxes.


Target Outlays, Long Term: $650B - $650B Constitutional outlays

Constitutional outlays reduced by eliminating interest on debt. Debt eliminated (including conversion of remaining SS+ beneficiarieis to to private annuities) in the interim as taxes are reduced more slowly than expenditures and/or by auction of land holdings. All other Unconstitutional programs phased out.

Target Income, Long Term: $650B - $70 B - 1% tax on debt initiation, $24 B - 1% surtax on all imports; 2% on imported petroleum, $60 B - 10% surtax on retail petroleum, $396B - tariffs, excises, & other taxes

Completed shift from economically counter-productive taxes to those that promote fiscal, environmental, and national well-being, including phasing in a retail petroleum tax and a net tripling of tariffs, excises, & other taxes, primarily by new 'illicit' drug taxes.


Not that the politicians and special interests would ever let this get started, much less reach its final goals, but it is realistically doable.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Tripling of tariffs has a negative GDP effect by stiffling trade and profits. It produces a net reduction in GDP. Lower GDP means less tax revenues.

So then you raise the tariffs even higher to make up for lost revenue and pretty soon you have the Great Depression. That's how Hoover did it.

I expect Social Security to pay benefits in full as long as the United States exists as a democracy.
All retired people love Social Security, and as retired people become a larger and larger percentage of the vote, Social Security becomes more entrenched than ever.
Even in 2040, when the Trust Fund runs out, the system will be collecting 75% to 80% of what it needs to pay benefits, and a small tax increase makes that problem go away.
The party that tries to do away with Social Security writes off one of the biggest voting blocks in the country, and I don't think it's politically possible.
You'd be pitting young people, who don't even vote in large numbers against huge numbers of retired people who vote in very large numbers (because they have all day).

Especially in light of the shifting demographics of the country, and the recent failures of so many private pension plans, I think you'll be seeing the government playing a much larger roll in retirement funding, which is more the norm in the industrialized world.

They'll eliminate the military before they cut Social Security.

__________________
“ 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 love how the "it's going to pay out more than it takes in" argument is shown as a sign of impending death. Guess what? When you retire, you'll be taking out more than you put in, too. Difference is, the boomers will die, and the fund will be replenished.

As far as telling these people, who were told when they started working that they were going to be supported in their retirements, that it's now their responsibility - what should we do with them? Let them be homeless and subsist on cans of Alpo?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

And I don't want to see that either. However, ignoring the unhealthy mechanism of SS is not a solution to the next generations. Some kind of reform needs to happen. I hope more of the gen-Xers and gen-Yers catch on that they need to attend their personal investment workshops. Those that are actually capable of saving need to take it more seriously. I do think there needs to be something in place for the potential Alpo-eating folks. But, I would prefer it be a welfare-like system rather than the current SS. If you can save, do so, and don't expect help. If you are part of the population that needs help, it will be there. I'm a bad conservative in this respect, except there needs to be equity of contributions into the system - some kind of offset of FICA contibutions with respect to personal retirement savings. As I am not a financial expert, I hope others can come up with constructive reform.

At this point, I don't even think it should be called "Social Securtity" - rename it and reform it.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

The issue of the Babyboomers raises different concerns for me. IMO, it's all the more reason for immigration incentives and legalisation of useful immigrants. An increasingly large percentage of Americans will be retired, living longer and having medical needs. Many child bearing age people are also having less children. We need taxpaying builders, roofers, tradesmen, hospitality, business staff, entrepreneurs, etc. to help fill the gaps and pay the bills.

If the states want to take care of retirees, they can. The federal govt should have no involvment. I have no problem with letting retired people who fail to plan for retirement suffer the consequences. Now if SS were optional, and run in such a way that MY payroll taxes werent paying for current retirees, it might be different.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Do whatever you want with them as long as you dont take my tax money to pay for it. If that means being homeless, so be it. Suffer the consequences.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

My apologies if I wasn't clear. The tripling is of the net of entire grouping "tariffs, excises, & other taxes". An appreciable portion, perhaps all, of this increase will be via the addition of new taxes on 'illicit drugs'.

Further, Any tax increase reduces trade and profits - Every $3 of income taxes I pay is one less box of Cheerios and some incremental hit on the bottom line of ADM, Con-Agra, and whomever else.

My plan is a gradual overall tax shift & reduction - My take-home pay eventually goes up $30 to cover the eventual fifty-cent increase increase in my weekly Cheerios, leaving me $5 to save for retirement, give to charity, or otherwise pump back into the economy.


That doesn't bode well for our democracy then.

That's why it needs to be phased out over years or even decades rather than just axed.

Based on current projections, that "small tax increase" amounts to at least 10% of gross pay, and is probably more like 20%. Given the other taxes and deductions already taken from people's paychecks, would You consider losing about a quarter of your take-home pay "a small tax increase"?

And that "small tax increase" doesn't kick in in 2040, it kicks in in 2017, when the imaginary SS trust fund has to start cashing in those imaginary bonds. (Tho in 2017, there are more workers per retiree than in 2040, so the hit might initially be as small as 10% of your take-home pay.)


That's why Nobody's proposing the Constitutionally proper plan of simply ending SS, not even libertarian me. Just as it took years or even decades for SS to gradually become so entrenched, it will take years or even decades for SS to gradually be fixed or phased out, assuming one is averse to unnecessary economic and societal upheaval.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Social Security is probably the most efficient retirement plan on the planet, as far as operating costs go.
It's like a giant insurance company, and it does exactly what it was supposed to do. Before Social Security, being old meant being poor, that has largely ended.
Sure, you need to save for retirement, Social Security provides a floor below which no one can fall.
The problem with private plans is that they don't all work.
There were airline pilots who were going to get 125,000 a year from the company pension plan, except that those plans defaulted and now they get 27000 a year, big difference, there were people who saved a bundle in their 401K, and put it in Enron stock.
Remember, the average return from Wall Street is 6%, that's the average.
It means that when Warren Buffet makes 30% on his billions, or George Soros or Kirk Kerkorian, then other investors make less than 6%, they even lose money, in order for the average return to be 6%.
Who do you think loses? Hint, it's not the wealthy well connected investors, it's the little guys, 90% of investors lose money on their first investment.
With Social Security Reform, that first investment will be their pension plan.
That's the real world, and it's why Social Security is a necessary part of our American experience, that if anything should be expanded.

__________________
“ 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

Apples and oranges here man. When you set up a private retirement fund the whole point is to be able to support yourself when you aren't working. That is what a private retirement plan is supposed to do. Social Security, on the other hand, does not work the same way. The problem is the baby boomers will not be dying fast enough. What happens in private business when you spend more money than you take in? It is called being in the red. Simple economics.

I say tough shit. If I can take care of myself, so can they.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Being born in 1960, I can't collect my full Social Security benefits until I reach the age of 67. I've worked very little over the past 20 years because my late husband's salary supported the family which means that if I retired on my credits, I'd get very little. He, however, died due to a nursing mistake at the age of 59, having spent the last eight years or so of his life on Social Security Disability. He paid into the system for over 30 years so it's fair to say that he paid in more than he took out. As long as I don't remarry before the age of 60, I can collect from my late husband's benefits and considering that he supported me financially, I think that's fair.
Yet, I've heard all kinds of proposals for reform, with one being eliminate Social Security for those born in 1960 or later. Of course, it'd probably be the death of the career of any politician that voted for that when you consider that it includes five years of the Babyboomer generation. I considerate myself lucky though because my husband made sure that I was taken care of even after his death. And with a pending, practically open/shut lawsuit, I'll have more than what I need for survival. Many women my age aren't that fortunate though and will depend on a small retirement pension and Social Security because we were told when we first started working 30 years or so ago that Social Security would be there. Now you young bucks want to come in here and try to take that security away from us! I've got a son your age and thank God, he understands that his father and I have both paid into the system and we deserve to get some of it back, even if it means that he's paying for it. And btw, by the time he retires, his son will have already been paying into the system for about 30 years.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"