Sounds just like a novel we read a few times.

+1 ewv. The planners are beginning to panic. They have managed to avoid reality for over 100 years. Now that the time has come to either acknowledge their errors or watch the world collapse they appear to be choosing the latter.

When SS was started the planners expected that most people would not live long enough to collect, and for many years many did not, or collected very little. The premise from the beginning was to buy votes with welfare promises that could never be fulfilled without escalating taxes beyond feasible limits.

SS as it is understood today cannot be saved. While taxes have been increased incrementally in the name of "saving" SS, the money collected has been spent and taxes still cannot be raised enough to pay what people have been led to expect.

Demagogic appeals like Christie's to cut off the "rich" while ignoring that they have paid for it several times over continue to count on belief in sacrificial collectivism for votes and to further morally entrench the system and the politicians while doing nothing to "save" it fiscally. There aren't enough "rich" to soak, only enough to attack in class warfare for votes.

Neither would raising the age limit to the point where most people can't collect save it. It would only be intentional welfare while putting more people into poverty because their potential savings were taken from them. The statists want to keep SS financially in the ponzi-black as a means to spend more money on other programs without appearing to raise taxes. That is not "saving" the system as people have been led to expect it.

What was it Emmanuel said, "never let a crisis go to waste." The depression was a crisis that FDR didn't let go to waste, and he imposed so many doodads that people came to believe that they had a "right" to them. Once that happened, the politicians expanded those programs so much that they're bankrupting the country. SS stopped being a safety net when WE THE PEOPLE elected politicians who promised us more. The politicians who promised us reality were never elected.

We're definitely on the same page. I say that you should never spend more than 70% of your take home pay; invest the rest. I also say that you should have at least a year's worth of your expenses covered in an emergency fund.

Ponzy scheme? Yes. Could it have been constructed in a fair free market way?, Yes. Ah, but whom do you trust? Not government, not in any paradigm.

It's a Ponzi scheme and has always been mathematically doomed to fail.

The root of the problem is the concept of retirement itself, which began in 1871 when Bismarck created the first modern welfare state. Before that time, if you became too old to continue working -- anywhere in the world -- your only recourse was to have your children support you. Which meant everyone had better marry and have enough children that at least two or three will still be alive when the time comes. (This is why birth rates fall when a country becomes rich.)

With the old age pension, and the existence of voluntary retirement, the nuclear family became possible, and thus the extended family was doomed. Many people, even libertarians, see this as entirely a good thing, but I'm not convinced.

I believe retirement will and should still exist in the future, but not for everyone -- only for the wealthy. Let voluntary charities (and welfare while we have it) do what they can, but don't burden everyone with "entitlements" for the old -- especially since old people, on average, are the richest demographic in society. Let's wind down Social Security (and stop making its promises to the young) before the cost becomes even more astronomical than it already is.

Brilliant! as the Brit's would say.

Of course it is a con job, but a very artful one. The government persuaded people that it (the government) needed to be given license to act as a legal and mandatory investment firm, regardless of the fact that government is not only unqualified to fulfill such a role, nor is it subject to market self-regulation, nor are the funds actually invested, and probably most importantly: that all this was done without any direct edict in the Constitution granting them any such power!

Where did you go wrong?

You didn't, unless you voted for LBJ in the 1970's or supported any of the politicians who lied about the purpose, scope, and implementation of SS. You, like the majority of the American people, were sold a vial of snake oil and told it was a potion of happiness.

The second place where you got robbed was in the constant inflation of US currency and it's resulting devaluation which dramatically and negatively affects savings. As the government has devalued the dollar so as to devalue the enormity of its debt, it has also devalued your savings.

rip it up cement it and paint it green ,,,

No, I actually live in Redmond WA. Started with 3M in Los Angeles in 1969, retired form 3M in Seattle in 2001 (right after 911, I couldn't stand the air travel anymore).

Unfortunately it went under my two year old driveway, pavers laid in a herringbone pattern. It would have cost more to have that redone. Just glad I'm able to afford it.

If you do a balanced mutual fund (that is rebalanced at least quarterly) you pull about 6% average still. That is why I used that number.

If you use some higher risk funds you can exceed 6% as well. Just do a search on Balanced Mutual funds, you will find quite a few.

Although I am pulling mine all out of any stocks around the end of the year. Presidential election years tend to do strange and unpredictable things to the stock market.

According to our SSA, Germany's Social Security began in 1889 with a retirement age of 70. That our own system hasn't raised the age to 75 is a testament to their disconnect from reality as to longevity. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

That is why the "emergency fund" Personally I would have rented a trencher from Lowe's or Home Depot for a couple hundred bucks, bought a couple hundred feet of PEX tubing used for the connections, a $250.00 dollar crimper set, and done it myself,. But that is just me.

Good luck getting 6% now. Or if you are message me and let me know where. :)

Excellent Five Points, perhaps a little too aggressive for some but well worth it if you can swing it. On top of regular savings I bought company stock at a discount that I maxed every year. I was fortunate to work for a great company, 3M. I keep at last 6 months in liquid cash, and just paid out of my emergency fund about $9000 to have a new water line pushed through underground from the house to the meter at the street.

I hear ya man.

I was out of my profession for a year and a half. I never took a dime of government loot.

I did do seasonal work with the Mexicans (picked cherries, watermelon, cantaloup, pumpkins and corn) and was so stiff from the physical work the next day that it about killed me for the first month. I delivered news papers too during that time and that was really bad.

The seasonal jobs sucked but they got me by until I found something in my profession again. The reason Americans will not take those jobs is because I would have had a better income on welfare or unemployment than I made picking crops and delivering papers. It was work I could drop at a moments notice and it left me able to interview and look for work. In the end it worked out, but I hated not having a job I could use my knowledge in.

I feel for ya.

Two additional taxes :) or even 4 two on you and another two on your employer.