[Torie]

You need to get a return of more than 3% over inflation to come out ahead vis a vis sticking with the present plan, since what you draw out into private accounts offsets what you get from standard SS. If inflation is 3%, that means a 6% return annualized, with a rather rapid accretion and erosion above and below that number.

[M. Thatcher]

what you draw out into private accounts offsets what you get from standard SS

You have repeated this several times. You are incorrect.

[smokeman]

Since the benefit cuts that are inevitably going to come, are not mentioned in your response, I am not sure your calculations are considering all the variables. However assuming you are correct, this is why I also support changing SS to getting out what you put in, plus the standard 1.2% rate of return that comes naturally. This whole idea of indexing based on either inflation or wages is ridiculous and is part of the insolvency problem. What bank in America would say, "Hey, well bump your balance simply because the dollar can't buy what it used to or the average wage is greater than it used to be!". The answer is simple, none. I get what I put in, plus some minor interest. Also, at least with private accounts if I croak at 66, I can pass it on. Plus in the long term, it could lead to a point where we privatize the entire system and eliminate the issue of indexing altogether and eliminate a huge entitlement. You gotta start somewhere, I say, sign me up.

[kabar]

You need to get a return of more than 3% over inflation to come out ahead vis a vis sticking with the present plan, since what you draw out into private accounts offsets what you get from standard SS. If inflation is 3%, that means a 6% return annualized, with a rather rapid accretion and erosion above and below that number.

Sticking with the present plan is not an option. Current recipients are doing quite well from this Ponzi scheme, but those under 30 today will actually get a negative return on their investment (sic).

Congress can change the benefits at any time under SS. They did so in 1983 when the raised the retirement age to 67, increased the FICA tax, and indexed the cap. Under SS, a person can contribute for almost 50 years and die without receiving any benefits or have any tangible assets. SS is the risky scheme. At least you own the private accounts. 6% return shoud not be hard to meet given historical rates of returns from eqities.