OK. I think it was the wording that seemed not right. So what they are saying is that when those who are now under 62 1/2 reach retirement age they will have a maximum ROI of 2 %. This is odd. What is the age at which the ROI is 2 % , probably at life expectancy I would assume, and for what earnings history. Are you sure you understood what you were looking at correctly. The problem isn't with social security. It is with Congress. You do know that The Trustees called for an increase in the contribution rate in the 1990s that was never enacted?
Also when you have read as many of these Trustee reports as I have, besides going a little blurry eyed, you pick up on differences between the Trustees attitudes during different administrations. I've got to run, so don't have time to elaborate now. But will try to touch on this in a later post. Have a couple other items I want to call to your attention as well.
