NationStates Jolt Archive

What if...
We decided to believe the Democrats and decided there was no reason to worry about Social Security. Instead, we encourage the Congress to remove caps on deductible IRAs and 401K type contributions? Now, everyone has a choice. We can wait for SSI, or we can provide for our own retirements with pre-tax dollars.

Or how about this? Make the 12.5 percent that we contribute to SSI pre-tax.

You'd think politicians would be able to meet somewhere in the grey, but they all make it seem like such a black and white issue.

Not gunna happen. The Repubs wished to kill SS for about 20 years now.

I don't know much about this or care much really - for all I know Bush may be right on this one.

But I still have the suspicion that the crisis is manufactured. Over the past 25 years Republicans have been pretty open about their mission being to repeal the New Deal and everything to do with it. I would suspect that this is just another stage of that process.

You'd think politicians would be able to meet somewhere in the grey, but they all make it seem like such a black and white issue.
lmao politicians meeting in the grey, thats better than catholics dont believe in jesus

Well, i dont understand this: The social security is basically a capitalization fund, state owned, and mandatory. Some people say its going bankrupt, and we should move to Private capitalization funds. But why wont those go bankrupt?

Well, i dont understand this: The social security is basically a capitalization fund, state owned, and mandatory. Some people say its going bankrupt, and we should move to Private capitalization funds. But why wont those go bankrupt?
magic, duh

Well, i dont understand this: The social security is basically a capitalization fund, state owned, and mandatory. Some people say its going bankrupt, and we should move to Private capitalization funds. But why wont those go bankrupt?
Social Security was founded when the average life expectancy was much lower. There were also more workers paying into the fund than there are now. So, there was indeed a surplus.

Along about 1964(?) comes Lyndon Johnson with a very unpopular war. He doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for the war, so he decides to write some IOUs to the Social Security Trust. It worked pretty well, so politicians for the last four decades have been doing the same thing. That's where the difficulty lies. In 2018, or so, the fund will not be sustained in the "pay as you go" fashion that we now enjoy. The IOUs from the trust fund will need to be redeemed. From where, you might ask? That's a good question. Then much later, after all of the IOUs have been redeemed, the fund will no longer be self supporting and the "pay as you go" method will not fund the payments.

Private accounts, as I understand them, are just that. Private savings accounts. My contributions fund my retirement. So, unless I make bad choices, or withdraw the money too fast, I should remain solvent. But it's mine.

So, I post some alternatives to tax increases, reduced benefits, and private savings accounts and all you bozos can do is rehash the old arguments. Thanks a lot.

What if...
We decided to believe the Democrats and decided there was no reason to worry about Social Security. Instead, we encourage the Congress to remove caps on deductible IRAs and 401K type contributions? Now, everyone has a choice. We can wait for SSI, or we can provide for our own retirements with pre-tax dollars.

Or how about this? Make the 12.5 percent that we contribute to SSI pre-tax.


Do the Democrats say there is no problem at all or do they say that there is no crisis and we need to take a long hard look at oru alternatives before makign any decisions?

If you think that it is the former you must not be paying attention.

I like your idea though. Give people a choice between private accounts or govt. controlled SS.

THERE IS NO CRISIS!
PERIOD!
http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=405
http://www.cepr.net/Bytes/social_security_2004.htm
Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Social Security shows the program to be considerably stronger than has been indicated in recent reports by the Social Security trustees. The new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053 - nearly fifty years into the future - with no changes whatsoever. This means Social Security is far sounder today than it has been through most of its existence. In the past, shortfalls in every decade from the forties to the eighties required frequent tax increases, with the last series of increases ending in 1990.

Privatization will cost several trillion dollars. When Argentina tried it in the 1990s, it destroyed its economy (http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm)

How can we trust Bush? In 1978, he said that if Social Security wasn't privatized, it would go bankrupt in 10 years. It is now 27 years after 1978...

It seems that Bush's propaganda is getting effective...

What if...
We decided to believe the Democrats and decided there was no reason to worry about Social Security. Instead, we encourage the Congress to remove caps on deductible IRAs and 401K type contributions? Now, everyone has a choice. We can wait for SSI, or we can provide for our own retirements with pre-tax dollars.

Or how about this? Make the 12.5 percent that we contribute to SSI pre-tax.
If you're young enough just opt out. The only problem is that you automatically ditch any money paid into the system and can never access the system for benefits.

THERE IS NO CRISIS!
PERIOD!
http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=405
http://www.cepr.net/Bytes/social_security_2004.htm
Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Social Security shows the program to be considerably stronger than has been indicated in recent reports by the Social Security trustees. The new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053 - nearly fifty years into the future - with no changes whatsoever. This means Social Security is far sounder today than it has been through most of its existence. In the past, shortfalls in every decade from the forties to the eighties required frequent tax increases, with the last series of increases ending in 1990.

Privatization will cost several trillion dollars. When Argentina tried it in the 1990s, it destroyed its economy (http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm)

How can we trust Bush? In 1978, he said that if Social Security wasn't privatized, it would go bankrupt in 10 years. It is now 27 years after 1978...

It seems that Bush's propaganda is getting effective...
Your first article quotes some guy in lieu of facts or figures. The second article tries to compare giving money to old people with national defense.

THERE IS NO CRISIS!
PERIOD!
http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=405
http://www.cepr.net/Bytes/social_security_2004.htm
Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Social Security shows the program to be considerably stronger than has been indicated in recent reports by the Social Security trustees. The new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053 - nearly fifty years into the future - with no changes whatsoever. This means Social Security is far sounder today than it has been through most of its existence. In the past, shortfalls in every decade from the forties to the eighties required frequent tax increases, with the last series of increases ending in 1990.

Privatization will cost several trillion dollars. When Argentina tried it in the 1990s, it destroyed its economy (http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm)

How can we trust Bush? In 1978, he said that if Social Security wasn't privatized, it would go bankrupt in 10 years. It is now 27 years after 1978...

It seems that Bush's propaganda is getting effective...
2053 uses best case numbers. Bush's estimate uses halfway numbers, not the best but not the worst. The worst case estimate means SocSec dies somewhere in the 2030's.

THERE IS NO CRISIS!
PERIOD!
http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=405
http://www.cepr.net/Bytes/social_security_2004.htm
Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Social Security shows the program to be considerably stronger than has been indicated in recent reports by the Social Security trustees. The new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053 - nearly fifty years into the future - with no changes whatsoever. This means Social Security is far sounder today than it has been through most of its existence. In the past, shortfalls in every decade from the forties to the eighties required frequent tax increases, with the last series of increases ending in 1990.

Privatization will cost several trillion dollars. When Argentina tried it in the 1990s, it destroyed its economy (http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm)

How can we trust Bush? In 1978, he said that if Social Security wasn't privatized, it would go bankrupt in 10 years. It is now 27 years after 1978...

It seems that Bush's propaganda is getting effective...

But something needs to be done about it. Myrmid was just spouting untrue partisian hackery about Democrats not thinking there is a problem at all with Soc Sec. But he/she did offer ideas for reform which can be taken into consideration.

As to your post, doesn't the real problem lie in the fact that Argentina spent all the SS tax money it was supposed to be saving? Well Bush is doing the same thing, so I don't know what the real solution is. Prolly a bit of every idea molded together to form an all new and improved SS idea.

Social Security was founded when the average life expectancy was much lower. There were also more workers paying into the fund than there are now. So, there was indeed a surplus.

Along about 1964(?) comes Lyndon Johnson with a very unpopular war. He doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for the war, so he decides to write some IOUs to the Social Security Trust. It worked pretty well, so politicians for the last four decades have been doing the same thing. That's where the difficulty lies. In 2018, or so, the fund will not be sustained in the "pay as you go" fashion that we now enjoy. The IOUs from the trust fund will need to be redeemed. From where, you might ask? That's a good question. Then much later, after all of the IOUs have been redeemed, the fund will no longer be self supporting and the "pay as you go" method will not fund the payments.

Private accounts, as I understand them, are just that. Private savings accounts. My contributions fund my retirement. So, unless I make bad choices, or withdraw the money too fast, I should remain solvent. But it's mine.


Wouldnt be feasable to simply increase the retirement age (instead of, lets say 65, to 70)?

Do the Democrats say there is no problem at all or do they say that there is no crisis and we need to take a long hard look at oru alternatives before makign any decisions?

If you think that it is the former you must not be paying attention.

I like your idea though. Give people a choice between private accounts or govt. controlled SS.
Exploring new ideas was the point of the thread. I don't think I ever used the work crisis, either. I think my original statement was that we should assume there was no problem with SSI. Then I suggested a couple ways that we could improve the way we manage retirement savings.

This isn't a rebuttal of your post, it's more of a general plea to forgo the usual hyperpole and demogogery. Which, sadly, hasn't happen. People seem to force the same, trite arguments that they have memorized, instead of really trying a decent discussion.

Wouldnt be feasable to simply increase the retirement age (instead of, lets say 65, to 70)?
Exactly right. If we increased the retirement age to 75, then we would be at a point where the remaining years of life are similar to what existed at the time SSI was established.

There are two retirement thresholds available, now. One is an early retirement at age 62. That entitles one to roughly 60% of the payments one would get if they held out for the full retirement at age 68. The retirement age has been climbing, but apparently not fast enough.

The traditional options to maintain SSI are reduce benefits, by increasing the eligibility age, and increasing payroll taxes on the working. I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested means testing the entitlement, but I suppose that would be another option.

Exploring new ideas was the point of the thread. I don't think I ever used the work crisis, either. I think my original statement was that we should assume there was no problem with SSI. Then I suggested a couple ways that we could improve the way we manage retirement savings.

This isn't a rebuttal of your post, it's more of a general plea to forgo the usual hyperpole and demogogery. Which, sadly, hasn't happen. People seem to force the same, trite arguments that they have memorized, instead of really trying a decent discussion.


okay - but what I was trying to get across to you is that the Democrats do not say that "there is no problem with social security" as you have suggested.

2053 uses best case numbers. Bush's estimate uses halfway numbers, not the best but not the worst. The worst case estimate means SocSec dies somewhere in the 2030's.
Bush's numbers are 2042, the nonpartisan CBO says 2052.

Stop saying Social security will 'die'! There will still be tens of millions of workers paying Social Security taxes. The payments will simply have to be slightly reduced, once that time comes, and there isn't any more problems.

okay - but what I was trying to get across to you is that the Democrats do not say that "there is no problem with social security" as you have suggested.
Okay. Correction noted. Whatever message the Democratic party is trying to project is not clear. I'm only sure that they don't want to allow any significant change in SSI. Do you agree there?

Stop saying Social security will 'die'! There will still be tens of millions of workers paying Social Security taxes. The payments will simply have to be slightly reduced, once that time comes, and there isn't any more problems.
Let's get back track!

I assume that the idea of uncapped IRA and 401K contributions is universally accepted.

Great. It's nice to see anonymous agreement about something.

What if...
We decided to believe the Democrats and decided there was no reason to worry about Social Security.

I like your idea, and I am actually for privitizing social security. However, the democrats are not saying there isn't anything to worry about with social security. They are saying that there isn't a signifigant reason to follow Bush's plan to completely rebuild it. A simple 1% raise in social security taxes or ~20% hike in the SSTaxable Income cap would completely revitalize the system as is and move the problem date from 2042 to 2187.

The fact is though, even as being for privatizing it (I turn 64 in 2042), I understand that Bush's idea is unworkable. Any fixes for SS will require either a cut in benefits (which won't happen, and probably shouldn't as it would remove the only reason to have it (keep the elderly out of poverty)) or a raise in taxes. He has refused to do the latter and can't get away with the former. His idea is therefore DOA.

If he tried to privatize it without raising taxes or lowering benefits it would mean something like a 2.6 trillion dollar deficit in SS within the next 5 years. Considering that he has already added 400 billion to the deficit and seems hell bent on adding another trillion to it already, I consider this to be fiscally irresponsible, bordering on outright criminal.

He needs to worry about balancing the budget and paying down the debt before going after anything else. I would rather not have to move my kids to china in order for them to find a job in 20 years because this president thought of deficit spending as something akin to prayer.

What if...
We decided to believe the Democrats and decided there was no reason to worry about Social Security. Instead, we encourage the Congress to remove caps on deductible IRAs and 401K type contributions? Now, everyone has a choice. We can wait for SSI, or we can provide for our own retirements with pre-tax dollars.

Or how about this? Make the 12.5 percent that we contribute to SSI pre-tax.
Even if social security isn't in danger, it's a crappy investment. As compared to the money you'll get out of it, the money you put into it would be better invested into a standard savings account. I wouldn't mind supporting the current system if I was also allowed to take some money and put it into a place where I would actually be able to retire and get more then enough to barely get by on. I'd like to have dignity and even a little fun when I retire. I plan to travel the world, since I won't have to worry about when I need to be back to work. You can't travel the world if you're counting on social security alone. With social security, you can count on getting a new cookbook entitled "1,001 ways to cook Alpo".

Do the Democrats say there is no problem at all or do they say that there is no crisis and we need to take a long hard look at oru alternatives before makign any decisions?

If you think that it is the former you must not be paying attention.

I like your idea though. Give people a choice between private accounts or govt. controlled SS.
The problem is that democrats want social security or nothing at all. That's my beef, I have no control over my retirement funds, which are getting a worse then bad rate of return. I ought to be able to opt out. It's MY money for MY retirement, why can't I have ANY say in what happens to it?

The problem is that democrats want social security or nothing at all. That's my beef, I have no control over my retirement funds, which are getting a worse then bad rate of return. I ought to be able to opt out. It's MY money for MY retirement, why can't I have ANY say in what happens to it?

Because:

1. If you (and everyone else) decided to stop paying into it, then senior citizens and people with disabilities who are on it now would go from having 1/10 below the poverty line, back to the 1/3 it was before the depression. This is more costly than you paying into it. Both in social and in monetary values (because then they would be on welfare or charity, which is more costly than them taking care of themselves).

2. If you didn't invest properly/wisely (and even if you did), then you stand a significant risk of losing that money, and would not get anything at all. Which you would blaim on the government (because noone will take responsibility for their own actions). Then they would have to insure that money (the same way they do savings accounts) and in the long run it would cost the governement more money than just leaving the system alone and raising taxes to cover the current shortfall.

well no the Democrats have not said that they don't want to change SS at all. They have said that they don't want to rush into anything, so perhaps that is hard to understand but I think its a smarter move than doing something that will have a negative outcome.

A quick way to see where the Democrats stood on the issue would be to write a short bill that says:

The Federal Government may never, under any circumstances, borrow any money from or against the Social Security Trust Fund.

If they all line up and sign that into law with no dissent and no further argument, then I'll believe that they really want to protect Social Security for everyone.

Otherwise, I believe that they want to protect Federal access to the slush fund of all slush funds.

I think the idea of releasing all limits on IRAs and 401Ks is a great idea.

Even if Social Security pays off as promised it is NEVER going to provide the amount of money I'm going to get from my 401K.

NEVER.

The amount it pays is so small, you'll have to live in a shack in the middle of the road and eat out of rubbish bins.

A quick way to see where the Democrats stood on the issue would be to write a short bill that says:

The Federal Government may never, under any circumstances, borrow any money from or against the Social Security Trust Fund.

If they all line up and sign that into law with no dissent and no further argument, then I'll believe that they really want to protect Social Security for everyone.

Otherwise, I believe that they want to protect Federal access to the slush fund of all slush funds.

I think the idea of releasing all limits on IRAs and 401Ks is a great idea.

Even if Social Security pays off as promised it is NEVER going to provide the amount of money I'm going to get from my 401K.

NEVER.

The amount it pays is so small, you'll have to live in a shack in the middle of the road and eat out of rubbish bins.

However, the Democrats never borrowed money from SS, you are thinking of Bush. His "Surplus" was SS surplus.

However, the Democrats never borrowed money from SS, you are thinking of Bush. His "Surplus" was SS surplus.

I think you're forgetting Lyndon Baines Johnson. Who was a Democratic President.

better idea. disband the current retirement package that the legislators participate in now (as they are not part of social security), and put them back onto social security.

see how fast those privatized accts happen then...

I think you're forgetting Lyndon Baines Johnson. Who was a Democratic President.

I'm pretty sure there was a surplus before Bush took office. That whole deal about Gore and his 'locked box' comes to mind.

You're attempt to blame the 'failing' of SS on the actions of Democratic presidents would not be the first time a Bush supporter has done so.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

I'm pretty sure there was a surplus before Bush took office. That whole deal about Gore and his 'locked box' comes to mind.

You're attempt to blame the 'failing' of SS on the actions of Democratic presidents would not be the first time a Bush supporter has done so.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

No, I'm trying to say that your statement that no Democrat has ever raided the Social Security Trust Fund is inaccurate.

Clinton also tried to use the Trust Fund to balance the budget.

Everyone has had their hands in the pot.

At least one Republican is proposing something that would make it impossible.
Not all Republicans want to go along with his idea.

Personally, I would like to have ALL of my Social Security contribution re-routed to my 401K and be forced to rely on whatever comes of that.

It's bound to be a far better deal than anything I get out of Social Security.

No, I'm trying to say that your statement that no Democrat has ever raided the Social Security Trust Fund is inaccurate.

Clinton also tried to use the Trust Fund to balance the budget.

Everyone has had their hands in the pot.

At least one Republican is proposing something that would make it impossible.
Not all Republicans want to go along with his idea.

Personally, I would like to have ALL of my Social Security contribution re-routed to my 401K and be forced to rely on whatever comes of that.

It's bound to be a far better deal than anything I get out of Social Security.

That really wasn't my statement. But it is obvious that presidents from both parties have used the SS fund from time to time.

Anyway, it is a bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket. If one fails you do not have a backup. It is good to have more than one system in place. Total privatization is a stupid idea. You are gambling with your future. The rewards may be theoretically greater with the 401k (or whatever system may replace SS) but a sensible person should not take this kind of foolhardy risk.

The money invested in my 401K is better spread around than Social Security.
They don't invest the Social Security money.
It's all in one basket.
And the government can take money from the basket any time they feel like it.

The money invested in my 401K is better spread around than Social Security.
They don't invest the Social Security money.
It's all in one basket.
And the government can take money from the basket any time they feel like it.

They aren't supposed to invest the SS money. That's what keeps it 'seperate' from, say, a stock portfolio and your 401k.

SS and 401k are 2 seperate things. If SS were spread around in stocks, then it would be all in one basket, vulnerable to the whims of the stock market as your 401k.

Having one system immune to the vulnerabilities of the other is about as seperate as you can get. Therefore, all your eggs are not in one basket.

And the government may take money out but they are not supposed to bankrupt it. Bush's actions in this area with his reckless spending are mortifying.

I also found this during Clinton's term. He put money in SS. There is a lot of distortion in the media that democrats have often supported privatization.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502070006

Well, i dont understand this: The social security is basically a capitalization fund, state owned, and mandatory. Some people say its going bankrupt, and we should move to Private capitalization funds. But why wont those go bankrupt?


Of course not!

Because surely you understand that joe average citizen can pick investments better than the sharp financial minds you have running your treasury department!!!

Of course not!

Because surely you understand that joe average citizen can pick investments better than the sharp financial minds you have running your treasury department!!!
That's actually a true statement when applied to mutual fund managers, anyway. When you look at mutual funds and include the fees and taxes, just buying and holding an index fund in the S&P500 will beat 70 to 80 percent of them.

So, if we invest our savings in the market, which is the same as betting on the economy growing, we will win. It's better than going to Vegas!

How come we have to replay all the old arguments. I was hoping for some critique on the original ideas of tax-free savings.

I like tax free savings. I like privitization (in part) of social security.

I do not however believe in a free ride, which is what the president's plan is asking for.

Deficit spending needs to stop. The budget needs to be slashed. Taxes have to be re-synched. And the SS Trust needs to be put off limits to politicians in washington.

His plan doesn't do any of that. Nor does it get rid of the $10Trillion deficit in '42 he keeps bringing up. It simply means that the deficit will be $2.6Trillion over the next 5 years or so, which we can't afford and will therefore become part of the National Debt, which we will be forced to pay interest on, and which will come out of our children's pockets as the exact same $10Trillion in 2042.

I would much rather pay my way now than force that debt onto my children. His spending habits are deplorably immoral.

I like tax free savings. I like privitization (in part) of social security.

I do not however believe in a free ride, which is what the president's plan is asking for.

Deficit spending needs to stop. The budget needs to be slashed. Taxes have to be re-synched. And the SS Trust needs to be put off limits to politicians in washington.

His plan doesn't do any of that. Nor does it get rid of the $10Trillion deficit in '42 he keeps bringing up. It simply means that the deficit will be $2.6Trillion over the next 5 years or so, which we can't afford and will therefore become part of the National Debt, which we will be forced to pay interest on, and which will come out of our children's pockets as the exact same $10Trillion in 2042.

I would much rather pay my way now than force that debt onto my children. His spending habits are deplorably immoral.
So, do you support the recent budget?

Social Security was founded when the average life expectancy was much lower. There were also more workers paying into the fund than there are now. So, there was indeed a surplus.

Along about 1964(?) comes Lyndon Johnson with a very unpopular war. He doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for the war, so he decides to write some IOUs to the Social Security Trust. It worked pretty well, so politicians for the last four decades have been doing the same thing. That's where the difficulty lies. In 2018, or so, the fund will not be sustained in the "pay as you go" fashion that we now enjoy. The IOUs from the trust fund will need to be redeemed. From where, you might ask? That's a good question. Then much later, after all of the IOUs have been redeemed, the fund will no longer be self supporting and the "pay as you go" method will not fund the payments.

Private accounts, as I understand them, are just that. Private savings accounts. My contributions fund my retirement. So, unless I make bad choices, or withdraw the money too fast, I should remain solvent. But it's mine.

This is wrong in a lot of ways.

First off: The increased life expectancy line is off. The Greenspan Commission overhauled Social Security under Reagan in 1983, taking into account the upcoming baby boomer retirement and the changes in life expectancy.

The surplus was a result of this restructuring, which instituted the Social Security Trust Funds. Currently, the SS trust funds are around $1.6 trillion. The SSA Trustees have put forward three projections based on probable immigration, productivity, birth, and life expectancy rates. The worst-case shows the fund being exhausted by around 2032, the intermediate by 2047, the best, continued growth indefinitely. For the intermediate estimate, *most baby boomers will be dead before the funds are tapped.*

Now, privatization and carve out schemes will hasten the bankruptcy of the funds. Why? Because the transfer to private accounts will cost somewhere between 750,000,000 and one trillion bucks. There goes a huge chunk of the trust. Moreover, the carve out amounts will be moneys that are no longer directed towards growing the funds, while the funds will be depleted by current retirees.

As Krugman mentions in his Times articles on this subject, such a transfer to private accounts will provide an excellent opportunity for the govt. default on the t-bonds that currently secure the funds. This is ugly, ugly business. Before claiming that private accounts will do as well as the SSA Trusts, note that the SEC has found that *professional investment firms* consistently underperform the DOW and that this is before the maintenance fees of the investment firms (currently, SSA operates at less than 1% of the fund. I challenge you to find a private firm as efficient).

Privatization would be an unqualified disaster.

Democrats do not call for no change. Rather, they're aware that, given the 40 year horizon of the fund depletion and the miracle of compound interest, a small shift today (be it in changing benefit schedules, raising payroll taxes, or changing benefits according to retirement age) would be more efficient than this Chicken Little fearmongering currently underway.

Oh, yeah. One more statistic: In 1950, 35% of retirees lived below the poverty line. With Social Security, that number is under 10% today. This scheme could send us back to them good ole days within a generation.

So, do you support the recent budget?

Nope. An increase in spending when one is facing deficits in the order of $100s of billions of dollars after several years of same is not fiscally responsible and borders on criminal.

Well, i dont understand this: The social security is basically a capitalization fund, state owned, and mandatory. Some people say its going bankrupt, and we should move to Private capitalization funds. But why wont those go bankrupt?

The government would make money on the sale of the Fund, they would then give grants to the private companies buying and subsequently running the funds, essentially it would become more difficult to obtain SS as the funds would be tightly controlled and more restricted.

The UK structure has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for many years (including the NHS) it just kind of keeps going.