You say this is not your position, but then go on to describe EXACTLY this position with an explanation of your transition process plus an EXTRANEOUS description of how everybody can be self sufficient by appropriately investing the money no longer contributed to SS. The last part is extraneous because SS is NOT an individual retirement plan. Why isn't that clear to you?
Anyway (and I really hesitate to address this), does your suggestion involve some monitoring, regulating, and administering of these IRAs? Does it include a plan for those whose investments go sour? If your answer is "no" to all of these questions, my characterization of your position, above, is accurate. If your answer is "yes" to all these issues, then you are introducing a gigantic, complex, far more intrusive, new "Big Government" program to replace SS and THAT DOES NOT SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE.
NO. Everyone who is currently getting or scheduled to get benefits, lets say everyone over 40, still gets their full benefits. From Social Security, which I know is not an individual retirement account.
Me, as in I, understand that after getting back my own 7.65% back from the government which I have contributed over the last 18 years do hearby renounce any future claim to receive any money from Social Security.
Future employer contributions still go to Social Security to pay benefits to current and future recipients, like I said, those over 40. No ones benefits are being cut. As recipients die, the need for my employers 7.65% will be reduced, because there are no new recipients. As the trust fund shows a surplus, because employers are still contributing, we can reduce the percentage going into Soc Sec and put the rest into the individual plans.
No ones benefits are being cut. The higher returns in individual accounts raises the average return that retirees get. The only loser is the government which doesn't get to waste as much of my retirement savings.
I hope it's clear to you that its clear to me that Social Security is not an individual retirement account. It is clear to both of us that it has been a transfer between generations. It should also be clear to both of us that it cannot continue as is without huge tax increases, benefit cuts or both. That's what I'm trying to avoid with my suggestion.
Why, do I tend to run on? :^)
does your suggestion involve some monitoring, regulating, and administering of these IRAs? Does it include a plan for those whose investments go sour? If your answer is "no" to all of these questions, my characterization of your position, above, is accurate. If your answer is "yes" to all these issues, then you are introducing a gigantic, complex, far more intrusive, new "Big Government" program to replace SS and THAT DOES NOT SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE.
Of course we need some sort of guidelines as far as appropriate investments. Low cost indexes which blend the Wilshire 5000 with a government bond component would be swell. As people get closer to retirement their bond portion would be increased and the stock would be decreased.
I don't see the government telling you how to safely invest your money is nearly as intrusive as them taking all your money with a promise that (wink-wink) it'll be here when you need it.