Quote:
|
Social security is not a substitute for a retirement plan and it was never meant to be.
|
Rekna,
This might help. However, you might question the facts of the source.
Social Security history Frequently Asked Questions
question 4 is of interest.
Edit: Now that I re-read your point, I suppose you are technically correct - it was not a substitute for a retirement plan. Although, you still want to cling to the math that SS will exist in any form by the time Hektore ages another 40 years - something I am unwilling to believe as fact.
The original plan was to augment incomes for people who lived beyond the average expectancy. The problem today is that they have lowered that age, rather than raising it.
---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------
roach -
The article paints an incomplete picture of SS, and does so intentionally. If you view the timeline of the posts, I reacted negatively to Rekna saying SS has only not run in the "green" for one year - when in fact it has not run in the "black" eleven years (question 26 from SSA.gov above). So, I do find it amusing and reacted as such, especially since his entire thread is premised on the delivery of facts.
When, Hektore said, "wait, what about when I need it in 40 years?" - I made light of Rekna's obvious mistakes as well as Johnson's convenient change of the finish line to suit his needs. The fact is, the finish line is when Hektore and I need it, not when Johnson believes it has proven itself as a working system. The fact is the SS system is in unsustainable decline and can not deliver what it promises to the people that are paying into it (Hektore).
So, pointing out these facts as facts in regards to one of the eight points the writer makes does not mean that I am a destroyer of the nation, as Rekna says, or a giant dummy toting some party line, as you imply.