“Social Security has been a Ponzi scheme since the day FDR started it in the 30s,” according to Douglas Jones of www.Chattanoogan.com. Jones backs up his argument with simple math. At the time the Social Security system was instituted, life expectancy was 61, and benefits did not kick in until the age of 65. Using the same formula today, “retirees” would have to be 82 to start collecting. But, alas, 65 continues to be the age at which benefits kick in—and, yes, 62, for those willing to take a reduced figure. 

The same sobering math holds true for Medicare, a humongous government health plan that came along three decades later. At the time President Lyndon Johnson set Medicare in motion, he knew that there were 78 million baby boomers entering the work force that were capable of funding the program well into the future.

Both of these systems have been factored into almost every Americans retirement plan, neither of which were meant to account for anything more than one fraction of their nest egg—certainly not the whole package. So, what happens on January 1, 2011, when the first of the 78 million becomes eligible for Medicare, followed by 4 million more on an annual basis? It’s payback time with nowhere near sufficient funds for paying back.

Is it any wonder younger workers are up in arms about paying into a system from which they will never receive benefits? But that’s a whole other story.

So, where does this glaring discrepancy in math leave retirees and their plans for living out their long-term dreams of leisure? That depends on how well they can afford to get along without the prospect of government perks—perks, by the way, that they were required to help fund over the course of their incoming-earning years.

Baby boomers have never been a group to take things lying down. Already large numbers of older workers are planning to continue working straight through their later years. You may be among them.