Nothing 'Secure' About Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, the creator of the Social Security system, once remarked that it might be in the best interest of the people to move Social Security toward "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

Social Security has proven to be a lousy "investment," if you want to call it that, for everyone who pays into the system. It seems like a harsh statement, but the return the individual taxpayer gets on his or her lifelong donations is paltry at best. Not to mention, unlike money deposited in an IRA or savings account, money dropped into Social Security is never truly yours.

It's not possible to pass that money onto your family in the event of your passing, nor can you use your Social Security payments pre-retirement, say, to borrow against or just simply cash into an investment that is yielding a higher return.

In order for the Social Security system to work properly, a higher ratio of workers to retirees is necessary.

Remember that the system is simply based off of a diffusion of payments (or redistribution of income if you will). Therefore, a smaller workforce paying out taxes to an ever-increasing retirement class proves troublesome.

Take, for example, the fact that when the program was first implemented in 1940, there were 16 workers for every one retiree. According to the Social Security Administration, today that number has shrunk dramatically to three workers for every one person drawing from the Social Security fund.

Although the ability for Social Security to pay its benefits is a problem (since it is projected to go in the red in 2018), my real gripe with the system is that it is simply inadequate for this day and age. With the availability for people to make money in stocks, bonds and foreign investments, why must we mandate our citizenry to this arcane retirement plan?

The annual rate of return in any one of those investments is much higher than the 0 percent you receive from your Social Security payout (not to mention that you can pass on some wealth to future generations). There seemingly is nothing "secure" about Social Security.

I equate Social Security checks for the elderly to the minimum wage -- if you think you can live off of it, you're crazy.

Partial privatization of Social Security can also be a real boost for the economy. The savings rate in the United States, on average, is pretty dismal. If we give more money back to the workers who earned it, we can try and promote greater savings within the system. Greater savings in our economy means banks will have more money to loan, keeping interest and inflation rates down.

Giving money back to the people who earned it in order to invest in the economy is not an evil conception. I'm a strong advocate that when people are faced with a decision, they often make a wise choice.

Opponents of privatization are seemingly scared of the notion of people actually having control over their money and economic well-being without constant government intrusion.

The federal government has proven to be unreliable in managing the Social Security system, which is why this issue has garnered such public interest in the current day.

The Social Security system is headed for crisis, and debate and discussion need to happen today before the system manifests to a full-fledged disaster in the future.