There’s a comment that I want to respond to but the point is too important to bury in my comments section. So I guess it’s back to politics for a bit.
“Myndful” has been a critic of my Social Security plan, which is fine. I wrote it off the cuff, almost as a conversation starter about a possible solution I see to the problems inherent in the program. But he (or she, I’m not sure) made this statement as part of the last comment:
“I tend to agree that social security as a retirement insurance program needs to be rethought. But going back to my comment about my age group (late 20’s) – how many people my age do you think have seriously thought about supporting themselves 40 years down the road?”
There’s two responses I have to this portion of the comment. Number one, by sunsetting the program over the amount of time I’m proposing it’s not like they’re not going to get fair warning. And how many young people already have an inkling that Social Security isn’t going to be around for them anyway? We hear on a regular basis that the program’s going to go into the tank in 2040 or whatever year they decide sounds scary but far-off enough to plug the latest “fix.” So this is my idea for a solution, and for most young people it’s just going to make what they’ve thought all along a self-fulfilling prophecy.
My other response is actually going to lead me into part of my next chapter in the 50 year plan, because I was planning on talking about fiscal responsibility – moreso on a governmental level but to some extent on the personal level.
Maybe I had a bit more of a head on my shoulders than most late 20’s types but I was already attempting to put money away for my retirement. Unfortunately, I also had a spouse who enjoyed having a lot of “stuff” and I could never put away a good sum of money until much later. (To be fair, we also bought a house in that time and used a chunk of my retirement money as a down payment.) Each time I tried I ended up having to withdraw the money I’d squirreled away. So I really didn’t get a good start on my retirement until about 8 years ago, in my mid 30’s.
But I look at the “bling” that kids in their 20’s spend their money on and it makes me shake my head. If they took 10% of what they spent on tricking up their little Hondas or buying games for their PlayStation and salted it away, they wouldn’t miss it but it would add up over time, not to mention keep their credit card payments at bay.
“Myndful” also noted:
“Making a sweeeping (sic) statement like ‘drop social security’ is all well and good, but what are you offering instead?”
My copy of the Constitution says not a thing about the federal government securing retirement. However, if a state wanted to get into that business, it’s up to them. An obvious example is where Alaska already distributes oil royalty payments to certain citizens – they could easily recast it as a retirement program and set up accounts for each resident. And we all know Maryland Democrats would have the attitude that you really don’t need the 12% that FICA takes out anyway and they’d likely try to vacuum it out of your wallet to set up a state program after the demise of the federal one is enacted. I’d fight that tooth and nail because I’m of the opinion we should try to take care of ourselves as much as we can, but Constitutionally it would be acceptable.
I have to give “Myndful” credit for making good comments that advance the post, as did the other people who gave their two cents. Really, I think I get the best comments of any of the blog sites around here, which I suppose means I have the best readers. So keep up the good work!
