[Moneyguy1]

1967:

I don't have a problem per se with some limited form of privitzation, but the truth of the matter is that there are many people who will not or cannot save, due to constraints on their income. I would like to see Social Security set up as an "insurance" type of system where what is paid in would buy a guaranteed annuity if that is what the individual desires. I keep going back to companies like Global Crossings, Enron and now a major airline, all with retirement plans in which employees invested that have left them with nickels on the dollar. If you do make those "bad decisions", then will there not have to be some kind of fund to assist you? Don't rule that out. Our society seems, at its core, to have some sensitivity toward the poor, who may be in that condition for reasons that have nothing to do with their desire not to be. We already have Roth IRAs, Keough plans and others that should encourage people to save for the future, but do they? We have companies that "match funds", but how many people take full advantege of this gift? These are already "privatized" methods of saving for retirement. They exist now. Do we need another, especially whan so many people are not even taking advantage of what is already out there?

Planning to work far beyond accepted retirement age is a gamble. Health may be a factor and that is something one cannot predict with any degree of accuracy.

Max out the IRA, the Keough or the deferred income plan. Plenty of opportunity there for individual saving. Look at the Social Security as an insurance policy to take care of those not so fortunate.

Finally, the other gamble is the obvious difference between defined contribution and defined benefit. The first assumes positive long term growth. The latter is a more absolute number that can be used for actual planning.

Good luck for the future, everyone!!!