S
shanna
Guest
I used to be in favor of privatizing SS and allowing individuals more control over their investments, but I agree that privatization means LESS control for all of us in the end, because we will ultimately be paying for those whose investments don't do well and don't have enough for retirement.
The simplest and IMHO the fairest solution is to simply raise the age for full retirement benefits. I'm sure there are graphs that depict the solvency of the system under various scenarios- raising the age by 1 year increments, and so on.
This preserves the intent of the system (provide a minimum retirement stipend to all, regardless of luck in life; who knows when one of us may become disabled, lose a spouse or otherwise become destitute).
It also is realistic because it accounts for increasing life spans.
The simplest and IMHO the fairest solution is to simply raise the age for full retirement benefits. I'm sure there are graphs that depict the solvency of the system under various scenarios- raising the age by 1 year increments, and so on.
This preserves the intent of the system (provide a minimum retirement stipend to all, regardless of luck in life; who knows when one of us may become disabled, lose a spouse or otherwise become destitute).
It also is realistic because it accounts for increasing life spans.