If my social security was invested in a low cost index fund it would be worth 10 times more. Stop stealing our retirement
6 Likes
I agree with you that social security needs to be changed, the system that is currently in place could be made so much better if it could be tweaked. I know you want it gone completely, but I have seen that it really has provided for an income for so many people. The problem that politicians have when trying to make any changes to Social Security is that there is such a backlash from senior lobbyists, such as AARP, and they have been very effective in mobilizing their constituents to voice their opposition to any changes to the system. Add to that the reality that the opposing political party accuses them of wanting grandma to starve, making any reform to social security an up-hill battle.
I believe Social Security serves a purpose and that it should not be done away with, but it needs a major overhaul.
-
Each individual should be contributing to their own retirement account. Meaning, the money that they and their employer contribute should be the property of the individual. That money is theirs and at the end of their life whatever money remains should become the property of their heirs.
I am in favor of requiring that inherited money to be credited to the heir’s own social security account, but there are valid arguments that it could be paid out as a lump sum, just like any other inheritance. -
Make it so the individual cannot access that money for any reason, before reaching retirement age, just as in the current system. I know that there will be those who will want to see exceptions such as for a disability, or hardship cases. But I believe the money in the account should be virtually untouchable until the individual reaches retirement age.
-
The individual will be able to choose where their funds are invested, just like a 401K . As an alternative the individual could elect to have the funds invested as the social security administrator chooses. But it is up to the individual to choose how his funds are invested.
-
The current system for funding each individual’s Social Security should remain intact. This means the employee and the employer contribute equally to the individual’s account.
-
When and how the revised plan is implemented will be the most contentious. I suggest that the current recipients of Social Security remain on the current system. The question is, which workers will be the first to be placed on the plan? Do we start it with those workers already in the work force and born before a certain date? Or do we wait to start it for individuals who have not yet started contributing to Social Security? Could it be a hybrid of the two, starting it for individual who have not yet started contributing, with an opt in provision for those already in the work force? With the opt in provision I suggest the money already contributed be credited to their individualized account.
With this plan, or something similar, retirees would no longer be relying on their children and grand-children to fund their Social Security.
2 Likes
Interesting, but not a new idea. Google search Al Gore and “Lockbox”, the same basic idea in the 2000 Presidential campaign. There were probably similar ideas before that.
A couple of questions for discussion
- Will you have a “safety net” for people who make bad decisions? You play the market and fail so the government will come in and save you. You know someone will purpose it.
- As you probably know, the people who make the laws can change them any time they want for any reason they feel is right. Can you prevent our elected leaders from raiding this bounty for their current ideas?
“Al Gore's Lockbox Wouldn't Have Saved Social Security - Business Insider”
“https://www.cato.org/commentary/al-gores-social-security-confusion”
And a skit from Saturday Night Live in 2000:
“On A Side Note: The “Lock Box” Has Nothing and Everything to do With Tolls - Yankee Institute”
I know that this concept has been discussed previously and is not original, but do I think it is worth talking about.
The 2 questions you listed are valid concerns, especially the question about politicians changing the rules to give them access to the funds.
We have to avoid is allowing ourselves to not taking action because we don’t have all the answers at the start, or out of fear of not knowing the nuances of the revised system. Questions, such as the ones you listed, should be asked and a plan to address them formulated. The changes I suggested were just the basic structure that would be used to build the program around. And just as in constructing anything, part of the structure may have to be torn down and rebuilt, if it is found to be inadequate. The beauty of collaboration is the ability to capitalize on the thoughts of others who have different strengths and abilities. But then, with to broad of a collaborative group, is the likelihood of becoming bogged down with obscure scenarios that a contributor’s 3rd cousin’s best friend’s mother-in-law experienced.
Having said all of this, I threw the idea out for discussion, and I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I do have the hope that the answers will come.
1 Like
Well said.
I’ve been advocating this for the longest. Thank you for taking the time to post.
Bill already introduced.
H.R.904 - No Tax on Social Security
Introduced in House (01/31/2025)
This bill excludes Social Security and Tier I railroad retirement benefits from gross income for purposes of federal income taxes. The bill also provides funds to cover reductions in transfers to the Social Security, Medicare, and Railroad Retirement trust funds resulting from the enactment of this bill.
I was disappointed that the Big Beautiful Bill did not include no tax on SS.