I never get tired of saying this: Ida May Fullep was the first recipient of a Social Security check. She had paid $22.54 into the system prior to her retirement. She lived to be 100. She had been paid $22,888.92 when she died. The Socialistic idiots who created the program had projected that average lifespan for a male, then 64 years, would not increase.
What went went wrong, Michael? We are living too long. Either we have to scrap the system or go bankrupt. There are no other choices left.

SSI is a CON, and has been ever since implemented.

People should have always been allowed to starve if they are too stupid to save for their own care in the future.

I have posted and can post dozens of articles about simple Janitors and other low income people who retired millionaires, not by screwing others, but by doing a few SIM PLE things.

Work Hard
Live Below your means
Save your money
Invest Your money wisely

http://nypost.com/2015/02/04/frugal-e...

Hard work and a frugal nature and we do not need Government at all to do anything for us other than keep our shores safe so we can enjoy freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

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.

How many of you that are not yet retired have saved enough on your own that you really won't need your SocSec? And how many of those plan on abiding by the law by signing up for it and then figuring out some way not to take the money?

I planned well, actually much better than I had expected and really don't need my SocSec. But, there is no way I'm going to work hard (or at all) to try to give it up, I'm just too selfish, and you can use all those other nasty words the left calls me. I don't argue that, that's just me. I'm entitled, SocSec is the law, and I'm going to abide by the law. Besides it does allow us to go out much more often, three or four time a week, and not having to worry about the menu prices. What I do have to worry about is the price of calories, I'm down 25 pounds as of this morning in the last 60 days. You should see me naked in front of the mirror, I look great (that was a true joke). Another five and I'm getting a huge Porterhouse with Baked Potato with all the fixings, of course using my SocSec money. I'd probably be driving my Corvette anyway, but I like to tell people I used my SocSec money to buy it.

Two things I tell all young people, "Don't Smoke", and "Save Your Money".

You were told by your financial advisor to expect a reasonable return on investment on conservative investments like bonds. That would be reasonable in a country that viewed its citizenry with respect, but instead you were viewed as an easy target by the looters.

A Con that for many has become a Necessity thanks to mixed market economic policies and huge tax burdens foisted upon the productive by over-bloated statist government. It has made it quite difficult for most to save for themselves when wages have been stagnant partly due to unfair trade and immigration policies, job market outsourcing and innovation stifled. The program itself was destined for failure, being nothing more than a ponzi scheme with unsound math and foresight. Although it can be argued that the creators of the scheme, according to well documented reports, knew it was so and thus it would not be shortsighted, but intentionally disingenuous for political gain... FDR!

Social security is just a fancy name for yet another tax...

A few numbers .....
US unfunded liabilities: $211 Trillion
(and INRCREASING at $4Trillion/year)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff...

US population (2014): 319 Million

Unfunded Liability per PERSON in US: $660,000

It would take about a $50,000 payment (in addition to all current taxes) per person per year to ever start paying this off.

Social Security is clearly a Con.
And our welfare state is clearly heading in the direction of Greece - just not as fast as some other countries/territories (ie: Puerto Rico).

It somewhat amazes me that, with all the looting, there is still a lot of producers/wealth production. One wonders how long the producers will tolerate all the free loaders - and how slowly/fast the system will change/collapse.

I think that the Gulch has shown in the past that a moderate investment strategy would outstrip the S.S. return by a very wide margin. So all of that money, taken by force, is not only a rip-off, but to add insult to injury, a Ponzi scheme as well. You didn't go wrong. Your country did.

Xenokroy, I thought about the same as you do, but
the HR man at the plant insisted I should, and he
said the company (although they had paid it in) would not regard it as robbery. So I took it. (I also
thought I would be able to pay it back to the company because I would soon have a job).
I have been unable to get the kinds of part-
time, seasonal jobs one of the others mentioned.
I had good attendance, and am still very strong;
I lift weights on a barbell I have in the house. I
have never been unemployed this long before,
since I left my father's house in 1970.-The long-
est before was about a week and a half in 1977,
and that was the extreme case, and only once;
I had needed time to get business arranged be-
fore I moved to Richmond. Once I had been
unemployed about 4 days between the Dairy-
Rite (see www.dairy-rite.com) and the furniture
factory; and my speed record was walking out
of a mill at 3:15 or so A.M. and being put to work
at a poultry plant in Bridgewater within about 4
hours and 15 minutes.--Not that I always got a
job I wanted; I've worked for very long stretches
at one place while trying to get hired at another.

But I'm still trying.

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.

When I learned that the people on Social Security
were being paid by the younger people working,(be-
cause their own money was now gone) it seemed to
me that it was unjust any way I figured it. Now I
am unemployed and have been since October (except for a few days shovelling snow this
past winter). My younger brother wants me to
go on it, but I don't want to. I have tried and tried to get a job. Then I thought, that if my
brother did not mind this money being taken from him, it might be all right to go on it for a
few months, till I got a job. So I asked him about
that and he said no, he didn't mind. My sister
(also younger) said the same thing. So I went
to the Social Security office, and asked,if I went
on retirement could I get off of it when I got a
job?--No, I was told.And other things about hav-
ing to pay stuff back later. I got very upset and
left without filing. But I went back the next day
and was told that if I got disability I could get
off it when I got a job. (I'm 63). So I have an
appointment, but I am living on borrowed money
till then. I am ashamed to call myself disabled;
I have epilepsy; but there are plenty of jobs I
can do, although it does interfere with getting
some jobs. But my unemployment (I filed for
it, at my former employer's insistence) has been
cut off. I just hope I can get a job soon. I hate
this welfare state, and I believe that it has had
a share in my being unemployed now.--But I
have been trying and trying to get a job.

The SS program as administered by our government is a ponzi scheme. They billed it as a trust fund containing the accumulated savings of the workers that they could tap when retirement came. But the government spent the money- all of it. Now, all that is paying retirees is the tax on payroll of the NON-retired workers. Our politicians should be rounded up and shot for this. It was theft. But, what can we expect from government when it tries to run this kind of program. They are all thieves.

The easiest way to tell if what the government is doing is Legal Plunder is simple.

If you attempt to do EXACTLY what the government does, and are sent to jail for committing a crime, then it's legal plunder.

Is Social Security Legal Plunder? Go ask Bernie Madoff.

Wow Michael, I am not to far behind you in years but I have about 6 more years before I qualify for SS. I plan to take my 401K and blow it on some property in Mexico or Belize with a house, all paid for up front. Then live off my savings and military retirement until 62, then SS, if there is anything left or the dollar has not tanked. I figure all the Mexicans will be here so it will nice and safe on the beach in Tulum or move to Belize as my parents live there, at least it is still cheap there. Unfortunately I have to keep paying taxes as a US Citizen or I lose my military retirement, so I will lose 30% or so to good old Uncle Sam. What I don't spend on housing and property, I will invest in more investment property wherever I am as the stock market and bonds are nothing but a casino and the house always wins.

Part 2 -- [Continued from July 21st posting]

Of course people like "woodlema" will tear this down. After all, to them, the very concept of team just means that "some group thinks they can tell me what to do", and "why should I give a damn about people 'too stupid or too lazy' to plan for their future survival?"

Whoever you are, I hope for your sake that you are never in a car accident, or in a fire, or in any situation for which you did not plan, or for which you may have your life or your freedom saved by someone who was not paid by you to save it.

"Survival of the fitest" is for animals in a jungle or an ocean, not free, intelligent beings.

Beings such as we, look to the survival of all, sometimes even our former enemies.

If John Galt thought as you do, he would have made his millions selling his power machine -- not caring what it was used for -- and took his fortune, bought a castle, some yachts and planes and such, and lived large to the end of this days -- and totally ignored the entire world while it crashed to dust all around him - until it imploded and crushed him as well.

John Galt gained no personal advantage by saving his fellow producers and creating the Gulch. He just knew that a sane TEAM of able individuals was what was needed to put the world back together again.

That's the kind of guy who stops his car and helps pull your car from going over the cliff -- not because he is an altruist -- but because he is not an animal, but instead a free, able being who knows what a sane world looks like.

And "I got mine, but you didn't get yours because you were too stupid or lazy so that's too bad for you" doesn't build a sane, pro-survival world.

Please Gulch, stop the snickering and snarling, and how about some more positive responses, eh?

There is a difference between SS being "half of my retirement income" and "even after cutting my living costs to the bone, SS funds half of my retirement expenses". Without explaining which one is the case, any attempt to determine "what went wrong" is destined to fail.

Many baby boomers are faring much worse than our parents because they refinanced their houses over and over, rather than retiring with a small house that was fully paid for; they paid for expensive educations for their children rather than the public college and university educations that many of the baby boomers had found sufficient; they borrowed against their houses and took loans or distributions from their [already insufficient] 401K plans to help out their kids; they co-signed education loans for their children who then left their parents to pay them off; and other financial errors that the Depression era parents would have recognized as foolhardy. Any one of those -- and especially more than one of those -- would be failing to plan, if not actually planning to fail.

Con or necessity? Any gov't m-a-n-d-a-t-e-d program is a con. And let's not forget that our illustrious "leaders" opt out.

My Viewpoint:

It's taken about a century to dig the money pit of SocSec.

It's going to take a generation or two to fill the hole so we might be able to climb out.

Any change/solution should be implemented over at least a generation or a 'working lifetime' of at least 40 years or more.

Phase out the current system gradually and implement its replacement in steps over that period.
If it's supposed to be a Supplemental Retirement Safety Net, workers/employees should be 100% vested for every dollar in their accounts, and not the government.

If it's a "retirement" benefit, the ownership and contributions should be fixed by contract with every individual, negotiable between themselves and their employer (which might be they, themselves!) as to what the contributions would be on their part or the employer's part.

If it's related to life expectancy, which makes sense, 'retirement age' or 'eligibility age' should be adjusted for life expectancy every five or ten years.

Individuals should be able to choose the age they want to retire at, and should take full responsibility for providing for their retirement expenses.

In some sense, you could retire at any age, but your 'payments' (if government-managed...) would be proportional to how long you worked before retiring.

Retire young => get less money... Just as if it were your own savings for retirement... which it should be.

imnsho.

Social Security is very much a Ponzi scheme - it depends on an ever-increasing number of contributors to pay off the ever-increasing number of "investors" (to say nothing of those many whose votes were purchased by adding them into the payout system without having to pay in). Better nutrition and better medical care both contributed to the losses, as we're simply living longer. But the underlying problem is that the SS system is inherently socialist - none of the money paid into the SS coffers is permitted to earn interest, so (1) SS is nothing more than a big mattress and (2) money paid in can never keep up with inflation, so more and more people have to pay in to support each person taking out - the SSA will tell you itself that in 1940 there were 159 contributors for each beneficiary so, even if we figure a 50% operational cost, each worker had to contribute only about 1/80th of a single recipient's benefit. Today the worker to beneficiary ratio is less than three to one; if we figure the same operational cost percentage, each worker must pay about 2/3 of an average beneficiary's benefit check. With the baby boomers now well into SS, and the birth rate and incomes down, it's only a matter of time before each working person has one or more SS recipients riding on his or her back, and I promise you that will not continue - prepare to be "shrugged."

Edited to add SSA ratio info: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

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.

SS might have been a good program, albeit a forced one if the funds taken in were actually used as loans to business or invested wisely.
But instead President Johnson and the Congress gave away the money to welfare and the "Great Society". SS is now an accounting fiction. It is a tax and not, since the 1960’s, a contribution to a “trust”. No one is paying IN to anything, they are only paying OUT. SS can be eliminated for those not already collecting benefits by refunding all past “contributions” with interest and putting that in a real retirement fund. Current recipients would continue being paid from taxes, or choose to opt out by receiving their past “contributions” plus interest.

For more see the article "Uncle Sam Madoff with your money" http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...

This program needs to be killed, gradually phased out so 70 year old people are not out in the street, but if you are 50, you are out.
Replace it with a purely self-funded set of private plans, that are required like ObamaCare.