Is there a legit argument for privatization of social security?

I am closing in on retirement, my goal has been to retire at 60. I did a little math over the weekend, I have 20 years with the company I work for and started a 401 when I started work there. The company put 3% of my salary in a 401 and matched 50% of my contribution up to 6%. So, for 20 years my account has gotten 12% of my salary. I used the calculator from the manager of my account to calculate my monthly cash flow from the account if I retired at 60 years of age. It came out to about $3300 a month. I then went to the SSA website and looked up what my social security would be at 62 years old, the earliest I can get any benefit. Keeping in mind that 6.2% for SS and 1.45% for medicare is a shade over 7.5% of my salary and the employer has to pony up another 7.5% for a total of 15%, or, 25% more than is contributed to my 401. If I start drawing social security at 62, my monthly check would be about $1700. The government has been collecting an amount equal to 15% of my salary for almost 40 years, twice as long as I have been putting a lesser amount into the 401. Not only has the government squandered the money they have taken, they threaten to further reduce benefits because of their poor investments. Then they are going to tax me again on the money they give back to me.I really can't see a reason not to push for privatization, future generations would benefit greatly if the government wasn't "holding their money" for them.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

cherokeepatti · 61-69, F

I don’t think so and hope it doesn’t happen. Too much can go wrong.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@cherokeepatti What could go wrong, just like healthcare, pick a plan and that 15% can go directly to the investors instead of the government. Some people may make poor decisions but it would benefit a great many more. The only people who would really take it in the shorts are people like me getting ready to retire because there would be no social security fund. The next generation would be making more when they retire because of the investment. The numbers don't lie, the government has been getting 15% since I started working, my 401, just for the last 20 years at 12%. So why is social security benefit only half as much as the 401? Had I started paying that 15% into a 401 when I started working, I would be looking at a disbursement of $7000 a month or better when I hit 60. Instead of retiring at a decent age when you can still have some fun, people will wait till they are 67 or 70 to retire to get a better check at the end of the month. Collect very little before they die, then the government gets to keep what they worked their life away for.

cherokeepatti · 61-69, F

@Roadsterrider From a pattern I’ve seen every time something is privatized a big chunk of money ends up in the pockets of people who aren’t supposed to be getting it.