There is two things that stand out to me---
1. It states that if we do nothing to change things, that SS won't go "bankrupt" in the strictest sense, that retirees would get "at least 73-78% of what they put in". Well, that isn't good enough for me, thank you very much.
2. Did it state anywhere in this article that the personal accounts would be "voluntary"---which would mean that the "gamble" would be the choice of the retiree, with the knowledge of the difference between that and staying in the "old" system?
All of these political chicken-littles that are against this change, are acting like EVERY American retiree will NEED their SS to survive----which is not true. My husband an I aren't rich by any means, but we do have a retirement plan that is going to be our main source of funding---not SS. Isn't SS supposed to be a "safety net", not a "savings account"?
"All of these political chicken-littles that are against this change, are acting like EVERY American retiree will NEED their SS to survive----which is not true. My husband an I aren't rich by any means, but we do have a retirement plan that is going to be our main source of funding---not SS. Isn't SS supposed to be a "safety net", not a "savings account"?"
People who take personal responsibility for their retirement as you have, will be the ones screwed by the "means testing" to come in the future. "Means" means, if you've provided for yourself, you won't see a penny of what was stolen for the deadbeats