Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 5:42 p.m. Monday, Sept. 27, 2010 Posted:
5:32 p.m. Monday, Sept. 27, 2010
BOYNTON BEACH — Republican Senate
nominee Marco Rubio, who once favored giving younger workers the
option of investing a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes
in private accounts, says he abandoned that view at least six months
ago after concluding the idea "doesn't work."
Rubio's position on Social Security has been under attack
recently from independent rival Charlie Crist, who as a Republican
in 1998 said that "maybe a very small percentage (1 or 2 percent)
could be privatized."
Crist now favors making no changes to Social Security and says
giving illegal immigrants an "earned path to citizenship" would
increase the number of workers paying into the system and improve
Here's an interesting look at
20 years of Social Security payments versus what else you
could have done with the money had it been yours. The
Seems like a big rip off (you paid in $231k and could
have had $739k), but the benefits don't seem that far apart.
Ok, so not much difference between $2,500 and $2,346 --
assuming you only contribute for 20 years and that you get
the max payout. But what happens if you contribute for 40
years? You'll have much more in the system and thus a lot
more you could have generated with the invested amount,
while the max Social Security payout remains the same.
Obviously Social Security is more than a simple
retirement plan for one person. It's a system designed to
have those that make more (in this case these people would
"make more" because they're paying in the maximum amount)
fund safety-net levels of retirement income for both
themselves and others. That said, it looks like it's a bad
investment for those people (versus what they could have
done with the money on their own.) Or is it?
What's your take on the issue?
| Visit Me