# social security privatization



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Aren't young people glad we privatized social security? The most widely used index fund for investment by private investors and 401k's in the stock market, the S&P 500 index fund, has gained 0% in the past 5 years (Feb 01 versus Feb 06). In fact, going back to the start of the irrational exhuberance, you go back to march 1999 at 0% gain. Granted this does not take into account reinvested dividends, dollar cost averaging and regular monthly investment, but this does show that investing is not a panacea for the problems of social security even with the best of intentions over even longer lengths of time. Invest wisely and diversify.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Well you have me confused, I didn't know we had privatized social security for one. If we have, tell me where to sign up.

Then, if you look at the 25 to 30 year averages instead of a 5 year leveling off period, you will see the gains are great.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't understand the original thread, either. Last I checked we didn't privatize social security. I'm not for or against it, but I do recognize there will be future problems!
I have no suggestions for the ultimate solution for the social security problem, but a couple of days ago it was reported in the paper that Americans saved LESS than ever before, actually, believe it or not, spent MORE than they made by about 1/2% with absolutely ZERO average savings! What are these ultimate consumer Americans going to do when they all want to retire and find they have put away NOTHING? Or worse still end up heavily in debt when they get to retirement age?? Then scream "Poor me! The government won't take care of me!" or, for the few responsible people who have saved and have looked after their own retirement, they will scream "Tax those rich SOB's so I can retire! Somebody better take care of me!" 
Just something to think about.......


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

Social security has not been "privatized". One proposal was to allow citizens to take 1% of the 7%(counting medicare) contribution and invest that in a 401K type fund. IF THEY CHOSE. No one would have been forced to change from what they have now.
Current Soc. Sec. contributions "grow" at about 3% per year. 
Proposal would have allowed contribution to the "G" (Govt. Securities) fund which grows 5-6% per year. or the "C" (tracks S&P 500) fund, which over the past decade has averaged 9% YES THAT DOES INCLUDE THE RECENT DECLINE
I've got 33 years with Federal govt. Most of my money is in the C-fund with some in the G-fund.....and I'm looking forward to a prosperous retirement.
Bottom line is Republicans think you are smart enough to make up your own mind. Democrats think you are not smart enough to choose. Whichever side you support.......is correct.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Get your calculater(fuzzy math) out when the Democrats start talking!
Doom and Gloom....lies :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

oldfireguy said:


> Social security has not been "privatized". One proposal was to allow citizens to take 1% of the 7%(counting medicare) contribution and invest that in a 401K type fund. IF THEY CHOSE. No one would have been forced to change from what they have now.
> Current Soc. Sec. contributions "grow" at about 3% per year.
> Proposal would have allowed contribution to the "G" (Govt. Securities) fund which grows 5-6% per year. or the "C" (tracks S&P 500) fund, which over the past decade has averaged 9% YES THAT DOES INCLUDE THE RECENT DECLINE
> I've got 33 years with Federal govt. Most of my money is in the C-fund with some in the G-fund.....and I'm looking forward to a prosperous retirement.
> Bottom line is Republicans think you are smart enough to make up your own mind. Democrats think you are not smart enough to choose. Whichever side you support.......is correct.


This was exactly what they were trying to push. I personally would have liked this option as I am a younger generation who will never see all the contributions I put in. That is UNLESS I decide I like the idea of having to work until 71 to receive full benefits. I'd personally much rather they take out 1-2% of all my contributions since age 15 and stick it in a personal savings retirement account, so that I can be assured of seeing something when I retire.

It always burns me :******: when I hear about Congress dipping their greedy little fingers into the Social Security fund. That $$ was NOT intended for their pork ideas. If we would have had a continuously funded UNTOUCHED Social Security Fund, there would be plenty of $$ to fund the baby boomers retirement. Instead, the younger generation will always be getting the shaft. Yeah.. we love the idea of working longer/retiring later and getting less payment when we retire.

The problem is, there will never be enough younger generation to vote on an appropriate Social Security bill that WE want to see. The younger generation doesn't have the numbers or the voting interest to go to the polls to correct this Colossal mistake. We just take it in the A$$ throughout our working life knowing we are paying for another generation's long retirement. (You get to retire at 65/67, and will live for on average 20-25 years on Soc. Security...I"ll get to retire at 71 and get 50% less on average in benefits paid out)

Seems fair no? Why would older Baby Boomers every want to change such a sweet deal?


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

Let's look at an example of alternative investments. There is a quick rough calculation called the "rule of 72" which means: If you divide 72 by the annual % rate, the number you come up with will equal the number of years for your investment to double in value.
Ie, an investment at a constant 8% would double in 9 years (rough estimate).

So&#8230;&#8230;
SS investment of $100 @ 3% will double in value every 24 years (72/3). Assuming you work 48 years that means your money doubles twice and would be worth $400.

Government securities - $100 @ 6% doubles in 12 years (4 times in 48 years) and will yield $1600.

S&P 500 index - $100 @ 9% doubles in 8 years (6 times in 48 years) and yields $6400.

Again, should it be your choice to make?

Makes no difference to my situation. I'm not under SS retirement, but my grown kids are. I'd like to see them offered the opportunity for a better future.


----------

