It should be, you are right. Unfortunately, it has been stolen.

The only retirement plans I support are individual plans managed and invested in by me and me alone.

I am working on it! Live forever, or die trying.

Jan
(But since I also continue to work...when would I collect the SS? Can't I just have my money back? <plaintive while>)

Don't give up Jan. If you eat right, get enough exercise and rest, go easy on the booze, and live till 137, you might break even:-)

Joe

It would be a little hard for senior citizens to start a revolution, wouldn't it. Made me think of the Monty Python "Hell's Grannies" skit.

I have been paying into SS all of my working life. Someone else will get that money. It should be 'mine'. Sigh.

Jan

In a population decline, it just does not work out. I remember when I was in my 20's...I barely had enough money to get by. I could not have shouldered the burden of paying for myself plus 'another person who was retired'. I did not believe in SS then; I do not believe in it now.

Jan

Yes it has to collapse. JudgeNap said the other day that he hoped there would not be a bloody revolution but given the insanity infecting Washington, there is no magic way out of this mess. It will end badly.

SS is a Ponzi scheme and therefore mathematically certain to fail. The only thing to be done is to stop making any new promises of SS payments to people under (say) 40 today, so they'll have time to do some saving while they can.

But chances are it won't happen, and we'll have a whole generation, maybe two, that doesn't get to retire, ever.

No, that "initial law", ERISA, backfired spectacularly. Its real effect was to eliminate every last defined-benefit pension in the country, mostly in favor of defined-contribution plans -- except those of public employees, whose greed knows no bounds.

ERISA needs to be amended so that if government workers' pension funds aren't prepaid (either by the employees or taxpayers) then future taxpayers have no duty to add anything to them, regardless of any promises they've gotten written into law. The relationship between those workers and the employing entity is simply so close that the legal concept of "undue influence" applies.

A Ponsi scheme is still a Ponsi scheme even if you call it Social Security or a Pension. If you are counting on a continuing stream of new people to pay out to the members, it will eventually collapse.

"Put your faith in the government. Everything else is dog-eat-dog and not to be trusted."
"This can only fail if the government fails, and that will never happen."
Those are just a couple of quotes that I've heard over the years. As long as the government is involved, we have nothing to worry about. It sounded unpatriotic to believe anything else. When I finally learned enough to know better, I was amazed at what a phoney bill of goods I was being sold, by people I thought I could trust who knew better, but had an agenda. Just one more definition of evil.

SS is already bankrupt. The GAO has been saying it for three Presidents now, it's just that every time they reiterate it, the date moves up. It used to be 2040 during Clinton. During Bush it was 2030 - and that was before the debt skyrocketed and Obama began signing up people for SS Disability like it was going out of style. I'd frankly be surprised if the date wasn't 2016 by now.

And will Social Security be next?

Pension funds are a false advertisement. They are not quite to the level of detail of a Ponzi scheme, but make the same false promises of returns.

The problem with pension funds is that they assume a static 8-10% return. They don't ever adjust themselves to the REAL returns of the market, and we haven't seen 8% returns in more than a decade. And most pension funds don't invest in stocks because they are too risky - they invest in AAA or AA Bonds (like municipal bonds), which are very low risk, but have a correspondingly low return.

Nearly every government or union pension fund in the United States is under water in a big way. You can see a list of those so bad off they had to notify the Department of Labor here: (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/criticalstatusno...). A watchdog site here (http://www.nilrr.org/nilrr-research/mult...) makes my eyes goggle.

Isn't the stock market increasing in value off the charts and aren't these funds vested in the stock market? if so, their value is also increasing so why do they have to be cut? What should be cut is the welfare payments that are given to the congressmen.

I think that the individual states should pay for their representation in Congress - aids and everything - instead of having it come out of Federal coffers. That would include the costs of their offices, supplies and most especially - pensions and retirement. If California wants to retire their senators on $1 million/year until they die - that's their prerogative, but don't make ME do it.

Yes, until now it has been against the law to cut a defined-benifit retirement retirement program. The reasoning behind that initial law makes sense. Then, we recently had a ruling that municipalities can fund such retirement programs over paying off their bonds in the case of bankruptcy. Interesting developments.

I think that as long as the feds believe it's ok to cut pensions they should be reducing their own pensions for senators and house members current and retired. Maybe we can put the cash toward our defecit.