It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Tman2135
Right now we're about at 2 workers to fund 1 recipient. I'm 32, and I am pretty confident that by the time I am 45 we will be at 1 worker funding 1 recipient.
After that we will then see 1 worker funding 2 recipients and it will continue to expand in the wrong direction. That is the point at which the entire system is no longer sustainable.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: peter_kandra
Do the numbers count that old people and the disabled die.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: peter_kandra
I would not privatize it. If I believe in anything, I believe bankers could not resist using that money for their private benefits. I watched that video with Ron Paul and I like the idea of keeping it a separate account the lawmakers can't dip into.
ETA What I meant, the disabled do not live long lives usually and people still die regularly at about 69. If their numbers begin to outweigh healthy young workers, we have serious problems that are not being addressed.
originally posted by: kosmicjack
Not sure it will be there but I have saved every check stub -ever - since my teens and keep track of my SS tax. If it's not there, I'm suing somebody.
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Edumakated
I understand the good points of privatizing. My parents experienced the great depression. I experienced the great recession and many recessions. What laws are in place that would guarantee that the funds would not just "disappear" in the hands of private investors or bankers for the next retirees in 30 years?