[lookout123]

bruce, to a limited degree yes. i don't know what the numbers would really look like, but it seems reasonable that the amount paid in should be able to be decreased until it reaches zero as the amount paid out decreases based on normal attrition. no matter which path is followed, when it comes to SS, at least one generation is going to get hosed over on SS benefit vs. amount paid in. better sooner than later.

but like i said, no career minded politician would ever support such a plan.

HM, did you even look at the numbers i entered? if an individual only paid $100/month into the new SS system they would have very substantial amounts of money to fund their retirements not even counting the 401K that most people also fund to some extent. If they retired in 2004 with @$1,000,000 and the next year experienced a 40% drop in the value of their individual account, they would still possess $600,000. If it dropped another 20% the next year they would still have $480,000. How many months of $1300 (what the average SS payment i see looks like) payments would $480,000 be good for?

at no time in the history of this country has a 40 investment in treasuries outperformed the market. past performance is not indicative of future results is the mantra of my business, but with all due respect, if we ever see a time period where the markets behaved like that, the world has a lot bigger problems than what Mrs Olsen down the street has in her retirement account.