I am not saying the argument is not valid.
I am saying a government that just approved trillions of new spending and is facing an already looming SS shortfall, (Just read you SS statement, it says right on there they cannot meet projected obligations.) will not let any one out of paying the payroll tax. Heck, they might pass retroactive legislation mandating railroad workers start paying into Social Security.
Personally, I was surprised that Bush's proposal for privatizing part of Social Security didn't get more traction. I realize that AARP is a strong lobby, but I would think everyone under the age of 40 would of rallied behind it. Sucks we don't have a group lobbying for us.
There was no reason that any one under 40 support Bush's proposed plan. Right know the company puts about 7% into SS for you. You put in about the same into SS. George Bush's plan was only going to let you put in 3 to 4% into a private account. So to start you would lose about 11% of the money that was going to fund your retirement. This 11% goes to fund those already in the SS plan.
So what would the 4% give you? If you make $100,000/yr. The government would put $4000 in your private account. If you were 35 years old and plan on retiring at 65. You would have $327,342.00 at 65(estimate 6% annual rate of return). That would give you an income of $2100/ month until 90 years old. There is no way in 30 years that you can live on $2100.00/month.
The average salary in the US is only $44,000/yr. They would only have about $150,000 dollars to retire on.
Bush's proposed plan only benefited Wall Street. They were going to make billions every year in administration fees. Their lobbying efforts were the driving force behind the plan.