SOCIAL INSECURITYI get some of the most angry responses when I say about Social Security,
"...if they would just let me opt out and not have to contribute anymore, I'd be willing to give up at least half of what I've put in to the system...they can keep the rest and I'll go out on my own and do better..."I can't figure out what angers people more...the opting out, or going on my own and doing better.
Believe it or not, there have been people who have opted out. Legally. In Galveston, Texas...county employees were allowed under a loophole in the Social Security system to opt out of the program. They did. And they're doing very well. They're contributing the same amount that they did before, 13.5 percent (1/2 themselves, 1/2 their employer), only it's invested in a very conservative money market fund...a mixture of bonds, stocks and mutual funds.
They're doing very well, thank you. Averaging more than 27-hundred dollars for a monthly retirement benefit - versus Social Security's 770-dollars. You can read about the institution of the program
here....and read about how it's doing
here.
Naturally, this comes as a surprise to a lot of people because the news media doesn't like to do it's job of rocking THAT boat. Heck, anyone who watches Dan Rather (at least one more night as of this post) knows who their target audience is...old folks. It's true, just keep an eye on the commercials. If you spot something that a normal under-40 person would use, let me know.
Here's a typical reply I get when challenging people's opinions about the primary golden leg of the FDR era:
"I still have my 403(b) and my IRA and my investments and my savings, plus the SECURITY of Social Security. If Bush's original plan goes through, better tell the Linn county supervisors not to sell the county home just yet. For a slightly more balanced account of Social Security vs. Galveston's Alternate Plan, see this report. And this was before the 'bust' of the stock market..."
They included a link to a GAO report
(which I included above - PDF file, so if you don't have Acrobat, you can't read it).
Let's see...even the report when you read it says the Social Security system is slated to go bust itself in 2032. The "trust fund" is more or less a
"just trust me" fund and will only be made solvent by increased taxation. I wouldn't call that "Security"...
But the mere fact that the writer says they have their own plans makes true everything I've said about Social Security. If it were so secure, why the need for a 401K, 403(b), IRA or anything else? The truth of the matter is people are more interested in protecting FDR's legacy than protecting actual LIVE people.
And the disdain people must have for those that don't have the extra income to invest in an IRA or 401K is really stunning. It's an
"I've got mine, you're stuck with crumbs" mentality that totally blows away the argument that liberals care for the poor.
The other truth of the Social Insecurity System is this: Congress has been stealing money from the
"just trust me" fund for years (going back to 1972) and it's filled with a bunch of IOU's. Ken Lay went to jail for doing that...but Congress somehow objects when there's the threat -
not to Social Security - but to their habit of spending money on investments like midnight basketball and a Lawrence Welk museum in South Dakota.
I challenged the writer...and I'll challenge those of you who might agree...do what I would like to do. Only, do it with your 401K, 403(b) or IRA. Cash them out now and give them to Social Security to "invest" for you. I'm sure you'll be a lot better off than those "risky schemes" on Wall Street. Right now, it's perfectly legal for you to do that...why isn't it perfectly legal for me to do what I want?
