On Aug 5, 9:07*am, Ignoramus16841

Dan, just keep in mind that what works for one person or a small group
of people (most people do not have substantial savings), would not
necessarily work if everyone was saving. If I recall correctly, it is
called the "aggregation fallacy" or some such. If suddenly, by edict,
the society needed to save more, there would not be enough investment
opportunities, so returns would go way down.

The proponents of eliminating Social Security say something like
"private investment returns were 10% per annum, so if everyone was
saving in private accounts, with same returns, everyone would have a
house on the beach". But there are not enough houses on the beach.

Example of this is Japan, where there was much private savings, and
not enough places to put saved money to work.

Like you, I also try to save for retirement, and frankly I would love
to retire earlier. And I also recognize that it would work better if
not everyone was trying to do the same thing.

i

I agree with you. Most people need to have a program where saving is
mandatory. So I can not see Social Security becoming optional.

However, I do think that one should be able to opt for having some of
your Social Security taxes invested. I would be for something like
you can opt for up to 15% of your social security being invested
privately. However if you choose this option, you will only get
credit for 90% of what you contribute to the government plan ( 85 %
times 90% ).

Dan