Replies

SS puts 100% in treasuries. How do you figure putting 30% in stocks triples your return. In fact, if you are looking forward, you can't say for sure which of these two strategies produces the best return over 5, 10, 15, etc. years.

It's easy to say that putting 30% in stocks and 70% in t-bills will triple my SS rate of return because for someone my age, 36 year old male, will only receive about a 2% real return. Balanced stock portfolios average a real return of at least 6%.

Those born in 1960, for example, are currently calculated to receive a real rate of return, on average, of less than 2 percent on their cumulative contributions. - Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, January 28, 1999

By comparison, the real yield on a 30-year inflation-indexed Treasury Bond in todays Wall Street Journal was 2.729%.

In other words, the government is paying me less than the treasury rate.

In addition to being low, rates of return from Social Security must be viewed as risky because they are subject to change from future political actions that will be needed to ensure long-term solvency of the program.

Also, my wife's contributions will add zero to our benefit when we retire. Considering the money she's already contributed, we'll be lucky to break even. Oh yeah, the 2% return Greenspan mentioned doesn't help if I die before age 67. At least if I can invest my own funds I'll have a nice lump sum to leave to my kids.

In other words, the government is paying me less than the treasury rate.

In addition to being low, rates of return from Social Security must be viewed as risky because they are subject to change from future political actions that will be needed to ensure long-term solvency of the program.

The political system and market economy cannot be separated. They are part of the same one whole. For example - if Social Security will be insolvent for demographic reasons so will be private pensions and stocks.

First of all, Greenspan will say whatever he has to say to make whatever politically motivated point he is trying to make even if he has to contradict what he has said before on the very same subject. Logic alone, however, dictates that the expected real return from regular treasuries will EXCEED the return from inflation adjusted treasuries. In an efficient market, the higher the risk the higher the expected return.

Secondly, history is no indication (let alone guarantee) of the future vis a vis stock market, but even using 8% real return expectation from stocks and 2.79% for bonds/SS produces only a 4.35% return (less than double, let alone triple).

Third, counteracting your scenario where you die before 67, is the scenario where you fritter away your investment and have nothing under the private scenario and live a long life. Which leads to the fourth and most important point that all of this privatizing Social Security seems to blatantly ignore:

The very purpose of the system (whether you agree with it or not) is to transfer funds, inter-generationally, from workers to retirees. It is not now, nor has it ever been intended to be a plan for current workers to provide for their own retirement.