Social Security. Get Rid Of It.

[Crossroads]

This is in regards to the retirement part of SS.

So, I've always said that I've supported Social Security, but recently, after considering it for a while, I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't have it. It is, essentially, the government forcing people to save their money, and then gives it back to people when they are older. So, the assumption is that people are to dumb to save their money on their own. Even though that is the case for many, that doesn't give the government the right, or give it a good reason, to act in that way. If you didn't save your money when you could have all those years, thats on you, not the federal government, or the rest of the tax payers. I'm fine with a strong social safety net, but unemployment insurance, food stamps etc, are different than a program that takes X among of dollars and gives you X amount of dollars back (possibly a slight increase) later on in life.

So liberals and progressives, convince me otherwise, if you can. Why should we keep SS as a government program?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So, the assumption is that people are to dumb to save their money on their own.

This assumption is true. Look at the rate at which people take advantage of 401k and similar programs, its depressing.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

My main objections to SS is that if you don't reach the age to collect, You Lose, thank you for the contribution.

The second objection was when they decided to start borrowing from it for general expenses.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

So liberals and progressives, convince me otherwise, if you can. Why should we keep SS as a government program?

Because they can't be trusted with their own money. They already hate big business, how can you expect them to actually invest in it? They only trust Starbucks and Apple.

 

[specklebang]

Certainly, SS could use substantial modification but let me try to defend it.

• In my complex, there are 2 women that I rent to. Thy both get $800 monthly from SS. They both had menial jobs all their lives due to education and ability. Sweet people. One is 69 and 1 is 74. Even with their $800 checks, they are barely making it. I rent to them for much less than anybody would, $550 a month, because I bough these places at the nadir of the crash. I'm pretty sure they get a few dollars in fod stamps. What woulds become of them if those $800 checks went away? They'd be homeless for sure and there isn't much help for people without children?

• People aren't all good at saving. They could be, they should be but they aren't. They're not smart enough to make a lot of money and thus, not smart enough to live below their means. Unless you make at least $50K a year, you can't live much without using debt for housing and transportation. So, many end up with little or no savings. So, there is a case for a Mandatory Savings Account. Now, the MSA is a Specklebang concept and SS is what reality is. Maybe someday we'll have leadership to institute the MSA but we're decades away from that type of government. In the meantime, what could we do instead thjat won't fill the streets with millions of elderly homeless people?


This is a non-partisan conversation please. The subject is SS and its validity or lack thereof.

 

[gavinfielder]

So liberals and progressives, convince me otherwise, if you can. Why should we keep SS as a government program?

Because we haven't had a depression in over 70 years, and I wouldn't like to start again now.

Old people can't be trusted to spend their money in a recession. This is a repeatedly verified fact--not that it needs to be, it makes perfect sense on its own, even more so for the elderly because they've been around the block and know that when **** starts getting bad, they need to buckle down and save money.
When spending goes down, the economy goes down. This is a also repeatedly verified fact, but again, it's only common sense. Consumption drives growth. With a lack of expected consumption, people get laid off, consumption is retarded again, and it all spirals down into an economic disaster.

Btw, 2008 was not an economic disaster. We lost 5% of our GDP and unemployment rose to 11%. In 1932 literally half our economy was wiped out and urban unemployment was 40%. That's an economic disaster. That's not even the only depression America has had. It was just the most recent. A large reason why 2008 was not an economic disaster of the same magnitude is because the government guarantees a paycheck and therefore guarantees consumption from the most vulnerable and historically reactionary demographic group. Social Security allows seniors the peace of mind to keep recessions from completely destroying the economy.

The idea that it's "it's on you" is bull****. None of us are self-sufficient anymore and we can't pretend that in any sort of modern economy we can be. The only person that can actually be self-sufficient is a farmer, and that's less than 3% of the national population now. If everyone stopped spending all at once, there would be no economy. There would be no jobs, and the other 97% of us who don't own productive farming land have a good chance at starvation. So when you lose your job because of a more severe recession than we just had, are you really going to say it's because you simply weren't trying hard enough? Of course not, the economy is fully fallible, and it's why we need social security as a stabilizer so that in a recession, everyone else in society isn't losing their job left and right. If you're really going to say "it's on you", then have fun finding a job when no one is spending money.

 

[armor99]

This is in regards to the retirement part of SS.

So, I've always said that I've supported Social Security, but recently, after considering it for a while, I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't have it. It is, essentially, the government forcing people to save their money, and then gives it back to people when they are older. So, the assumption is that people are to dumb to save their money on their own. Even though that is the case for many, that doesn't give the government the right, or give it a good reason, to act in that way. If you didn't save your money when you could have all those years, thats on you, not the federal government, or the rest of the tax payers. I'm fine with a strong social safety net, but unemployment insurance, food stamps etc, are different than a program that takes X among of dollars and gives you X amount of dollars back (possibly a slight increase) later on in life.

So liberals and progressives, convince me otherwise, if you can. Why should we keep SS as a government program?

I agree with you completely. SS is one of the worst retirement programs that has ever been devised. Let us look at the math of it for just a moment. Forgive me that I do not have the numbers in front of me (but I did look them up before), but from what I remember the amount you get back from SS is dependant on how much money you make. The more you make... the less you get back. Sort of a redistribution of wealth which I do not like.... but I will put that aside as well for the moment. I also remember that even conservatively... it would take someone over 12 years to get back all of the money that they put in over their careers.

So if you put that money in a bank account you would still have more money at the beginning of retirement, than with the current SS system. Put that money into even very conservative investments, and you would have a LOT more!!!

Now consider this... How much would it cost state and fed govt, to start educating people about saving for retirement at the HS level, vs. the massive expense of running the SS system in the first place? The secret to becomming wealthy.... is that there is no secret. If you start saving early enough, and are consistant about it, there is no reason that even those with a moderate income can have a decent retirement supply to draw from. Plus..... when people start saving their own money for retirement, rather than allow the govt to handle it, they are making it more difficult for the govt to control what it is they want to do later in life. Politicians now on both sides are trying to scare one group or another with the threat of messing around with SS. I say.... take that power away from them. The more power and control that you take over your own life, the less politicians and govt have power over you. I would think most people would want to move in that direction....

 

[specklebang]

This statement does not seem to be accurate. There is a cap on the "tax" and a cap on the return.

the amount you get back from SS is dependant on how much money you make. The more you make... the less you get back. Sort of a redistribution of wealth which I do not like

I agree with you completely. SS is one of the worst retirement programs that has ever been devised. Let us look at the math of it for just a moment. Forgive me that I do not have the numbers in front of me (but I did look them up before), but from what I remember the amount you get back from SS is dependant on how much money you make. The more you make... the less you get back. Sort of a redistribution of wealth which I do not like.... but I will put that aside as well for the moment. I also remember that even conservatively... it would take someone over 12 years to get back all of the money that they put in over their careers.

So if you put that money in a bank account you would still have more money at the beginning of retirement, than with the current SS system. Put that money into even very conservative investments, and you would have a LOT more!!!

Now consider this... How much would it cost state and fed govt, to start educating people about saving for retirement at the HS level, vs. the massive expense of running the SS system in the first place? The secret to becomming wealthy.... is that there is no secret. If you start saving early enough, and are consistant about it, there is no reason that even those with a moderate income can have a decent retirement supply to draw from. Plus..... when people start saving their own money for retirement, rather than allow the govt to handle it, they are making it more difficult for the govt to control what it is they want to do later in life. Politicians now on both sides are trying to scare one group or another with the threat of messing around with SS. I say.... take that power away from them. The more power and control that you take over your own life, the less politicians and govt have power over you. I would think most people would want to move in that direction....

 

[armor99]

Certainly, SS could use substantial modification but let me try to defend it.

• In my complex, there are 2 women that I rent to. Thy both get $800 monthly from SS. They both had menial jobs all their lives due to education and ability. Sweet people. One is 69 and 1 is 74. Even with their $800 checks, they are barely making it. I rent to them for much less than anybody would, $550 a month, because I bough these places at the nadir of the crash. I'm pretty sure they get a few dollars in fod stamps. What woulds become of them if those $800 checks went away? They'd be homeless for sure and there isn't much help for people without children?

• People aren't all good at saving. They could be, they should be but they aren't. They're not smart enough to make a lot of money and thus, not smart enough to live below their means. Unless you make at least $50K a year, you can't live much without using debt for housing and transportation. So, many end up with little or no savings. So, there is a case for a Mandatory Savings Account. Now, the MSA is a Specklebang concept and SS is what reality is. Maybe someday we'll have leadership to institute the MSA but we're decades away from that type of government. In the meantime, what could we do instead thjat won't fill the streets with millions of elderly homeless people?


This is a non-partisan conversation please. The subject is SS and its validity or lack thereof.

I hear your arguements... and they are good ones. I guess there are some things that I do not WANT to believe. But they may in fact be true. Perhaps by and large the majority of the US population is literally not smart enough to plan for their own retirement. That even with more education on this subject... they would refuse to do it. I guess I just do not want to believe that though. I still think that a majority of people if offered the right education on the matter would be more than happy to tow the line for themselves... if they understood in advance that assistance from the govt is not a place you want to find yourself later in life.


It is a very old arguement... and I admit... you very well might be correct.. The idea that because people are too foolish to take care of themselves, that it is ok for a "benevolent" govt to force people to do things that they do not want to do. Because in the name of "their own good" they should be compelled to save money for their retirement. I guess I just have a problem with the idea of a govt compelling people to do things against their will, even if you can prove that by forcing people to do these things their lives will turn out for the better for it. Then it really becomes a question of.... who does your life belong to. You.... or the state? I think that distinction is important.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Old people can't be trusted to spend their money in a recession. This is a repeatedly verified fact--not that it needs to be, it makes perfect sense on its own, even more so for the elderly because they've been around the block and know that when **** starts getting bad, they need to buckle down and save money.

So the old people need to screw themselves and spend to help the economy. Not that is helps the economy anymore than flushing money down the toilet does.

When spending goes down, the economy goes down. This is a also repeatedly verified fact, but again, it's only common sense. Consumption drives growth. With a lack of expected consumption, people get laid off, consumption is retarded again, and it all spirals down into an economic disaster.

Spending goes down as a response to a crisis, as it should. The economy vannot grow again until adequate savings is restablished. Radical consumption only keeps the economy stagnent.

Btw, 2008 was not an economic disaster. We lost 5% of our GDP and unemployment rose to 11%. In 1932 literally half our economy was wiped out and urban unemployment was 40%. That's an economic disaster. That's not even the only depression America has had. It was just the most recent. A large reason why 2008 was not an economic disaster of the same magnitude is because the government guarantees a paycheck and therefore guarantees consumption from the most vulnerable and historically reactionary demographic group. Social Security allows seniors the peace of mind to keep recessions from completely destroying the economy.

Social Security does not guarantee spending any differently than private saving does. I do not know where this assumption came from.

The idea that it's "it's on you" is bull****. None of us are self-sufficient anymore and we can't pretend that in any sort of modern economy we can be. The only person that can actually be self-sufficient is a farmer, and that's less than 3% of the national population now. If everyone stopped spending all at once, there would be no economy. There would be no jobs, and the other 97% of us who don't own productive farming land have a good chance at starvation. So when you lose your job because of a more severe recession than we just had, are you really going to say it's because you simply weren't trying hard enough? Of course not, the economy is fully fallible, and it's why we need social security as a stabilizer so that in a recession, everyone else in society isn't losing their job left and right. If you're really going to say "it's on you", then have fun finding a job when no one is spending money.

Personal responsiblity is only reduced because government (innefectively and coercively) takes that responsibility.

 

[Crossroads]

The idea that it's "it's on you" is bull****. None of us are self-sufficient anymore and we can't pretend that in any sort of modern economy we can be. The only person that can actually be self-sufficient is a farmer, and that's less than 3% of the national population now. If everyone stopped spending all at once, there would be no economy. There would be no jobs, and the other 97% of us who don't own productive farming land have a good chance at starvation. So when you lose your job because of a more severe recession than we just had, are you really going to say it's because you simply weren't trying hard enough? Of course not, the economy is fully fallible, and it's why we need social security as a stabilizer so that in a recession, everyone else in society isn't losing their job left and right. If you're really going to say "it's on you", then have fun finding a job when no one is spending money.

Maybe you missed the part where I said I support a strong safety net for when the economy tanks (though, I have my fairly conservative ideas on reforming some of it).
The thing here is about Social Security, specifically, the retirement fund. That money could be better invested in low risk savings in the private sector, and probably do better, but that should be up to the individual, how they spend their money, and when. And that is utterly different, then having an insurance net set in place, so that if you do lose your job, you will have a little bit of an extra cushion to fall back onto to help you survive.

 

[specklebang]

If it weren't for our interventionist policies, much less governance would be needed. But we seem to believe that nobody can be left hungry or dead. Thus we have taxes and rising medical costs. If medicine was cash and carry, millions would die and the rest of us could live much more expansively but this just isn't societally plausible (IMHO).

Even where we have sex education in schools, people still have babies because they can't visualize anything past the present. So, I'm doubtful that financial management education would be any more effective.

We live in a consumer world and a few hours of schooling may not be able to compete with hundreds of hours of advertising. People THINK they need tings. Of course, they don't but again, the lower the income generally the lower the ability to process and extrapolate.

Nobody who is 20 thinks they will ever be 70. So it's hard to plan and deprive yourself now because you may wish 50 years later that you had kept the money instead. So, yeah, I think we do need forced savings but I wish it were MSA based, and collective. It would be much fairer but we're already buried deep in the current SS structure where you want to live another 100 years and they want you to die at 66.

The constant currency debasement is another contributor to the lack of enthusiasm for accumulation. When I was 15, I saved $22 out of every $40 O made each week. That original $22 barely buys a meal now. In the short term, only savers have opportunities. But in the longer term, the currency itself is undependable..

I hear your arguements... and they are good ones. I guess there are some things that I do not WANT to believe. But they may in fact be true. Perhaps by and large the majority of the US population is literally not smart enough to plan for their own retirement. That even with more education on this subject... they would refuse to do it. I guess I just do not want to believe that though. I still think that a majority of people if offered the right education on the matter would be more than happy to tow the line for themselves... if they understood in advance that assistance from the govt is not a place you want to find yourself later in life.


It is a very old arguement... and I admit... you very well might be correct.. The idea that because people are too foolish to take care of themselves, that it is ok for a "benevolent" govt to force people to do things that they do not want to do. Because in the name of "their own good" they should be compelled to save money for their retirement. I guess I just have a problem with the idea of a govt compelling people to do things against their will, even if you can prove that by forcing people to do these things their lives will turn out for the better for it. Then it really becomes a question of.... who does your life belong to. You.... or the state? I think that distinction is important.

 

[gavinfielder]

Maybe you missed the part where I said I support a strong safety net for when the economy tanks.

Yeah, I did miss that. Where was that? It wasn't in this thread, you didn't mention the economy at all in the OP.

The thing here is about Social Security, specifically, the retirement fund. That money could be better invested in low risk savings in the private sector, and probably do better, but that should be up to the individual, how they spend their money, and when. And that is utterly different, then having an insurance net set in place, so that if you do lose your job, you will have a little bit of an extra cushion to fall back onto to help you survive

You're assuming that the firms issuing these policies will invariably be solvent. This generation has been taught that banks cannot fail and that our money and assets will always be protected. Well, that's not true (unless the government makes a habit of bailing out banks, and that would be a big problem). Even if you could put the nation on an individual mandate to get a retirement plan, it's still not nearly the social protection afforded by a currency-issuing authority.

 

[armor99]

This statement does not seem to be accurate. There is a cap on the "tax" and a cap on the return.

the amount you get back from SS is dependant on how much money you make. The more you make... the less you get back. Sort of a redistribution of wealth which I do not like

Ok... because I was curious... I found the actual document online. It is from a .gov web site... and involves various charts etc. Of particular interest are tables 17 and 20.


http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45222.pdf

Table 17 shows that lower wage earnes actually get back a higher percentage of their lifetime input into SS, than do average, or higher wage earners. That means that since all of the SS is in one large fund, that effectively two groups money is being skewed toward lower income workers. This is what I meant be income redistribution. And this is pretty much as clear an example of it, as I have ever seen. Now while it is certainly true that on a dollar for dollar basis high income workers get more dollars back... that is true... but for average or high wage earners... their money is being taken from them and given to the lower income group. So the more money you make... the less of it you will actually get back...

Table 20 shows this same effect.... but in a different way. It shows the average amount of time it takes for a low wage earner.... average wage earner, and high wage earner to get back their total contribution (plus employers contrib) into SS after retirement age. As you can clearly see... for a low wager earner family.... it take approximately 7.5 years... while for a high wage earning family it takes twice as long at 14.8 years.


I encourage you to read that document. I had no idea these things were going on with SS until I read it. It was very surprising. I think a lot of people are under a lot of misconceptions about what SS actually does, and how it operates. I think that document will at least shed some light on what the facts are.

 

[cpwill]

This assumption is true. Look at the rate at which people take advantage of 401k and similar programs, its depressing.

The counter to which, of course, is that people save less now than they did in the days before there was Social Security. We have created an issue of the commons, where we have shifted individual incentives in a self-destructive direction.


as to 'what should be done' with Social Security - the same as we are doing with all of our other failed, overburdensome defined-benefit plans; change it to a defined-contribution model.

 

[specklebang]

Thanks for the lead. My assumption were based on my own SS situation. I paid in about $180K and I'm getting paid back at $25K yearly. So, it will be 7 some years for me to get back what I paid in. I paid in both employer and employee portions since I was self employed most of my life. There were quite a few years when my SS portion hit the cap and that seems to be how they even this out. My "high wage" era was about 20 years.

I retired at 66, the "full retirement" age and received the maximum possible from SS. $2177 at the time.

Now, I expect to take out more than I put in (if I don't drop dead) but I got no interest on the money I paid in. If this had been a Mandatory Savings Account, I probably would have about double that (just guessing). I don't depend on it 100% and I earn about another $25K a year on the side. It does make me feel secure though

Ok... because I was curious... I found the actual document online. It is from a .gov web site... and involves various charts etc. Of particular interest are tables 17 and 20.


http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45222.pdf

Table 17 shows that lower wage earnes actually get back a higher percentage of their lifetime input into SS, than do average, or higher wage earners. That means that since all of the SS is in one large fund, that effectively two groups money is being skewed toward lower income workers. This is what I meant be income redistribution. And this is pretty much as clear an example of it, as I have ever seen. Now while it is certainly true that on a dollar for dollar basis high income workers get more dollars back... that is true... but for average or high wage earners... their money is being taken from them and given to the lower income group. So the more money you make... the less of it you will actually get back...

Table 20 shows this same effect.... but in a different way. It shows the average amount of time it takes for a low wage earner.... average wage earner, and high wage earner to get back their total contribution (plus employers contrib) into SS after retirement age. As you can clearly see... for a low wager earner family.... it take approximately 7.5 years... while for a high wage earning family it takes twice as long at 14.8 years.


I encourage you to read that document. I had no idea these things were going on with SS until I read it. It was very surprising. I think a lot of people are under a lot of misconceptions about what SS actually does, and how it operates. I think that document will at least shed some light on what the facts are.

 

[Anrch-Cptlst]

Yes we should get rid of Social Security. Just like we should get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Food Stamps, WIC, just to name a few.

 

[obvious Child]

So liberals and progressives, convince me otherwise, if you can. Why should we keep SS as a government program?

Okay. In your Social Security-less world, what happens to retirees who didn't save and now have nothing? We support them via higher taxes to fund more welfare?

How is that better? That just penalizes responsible people and rewards those who were reckless.

 

[obvious Child]

The counter to which, of course, is that people save less now than they did in the days before there was Social Security. We have created an issue of the commons, where we have shifted individual incentives in a self-destructive direction.


as to 'what should be done' with Social Security - the same as we are doing with all of our other failed, overburdensome defined-benefit plans; change it to a defined-contribution model.

People also tended to die at age 50 back then. And healthcare costs weren't exorbitant. You're not really make a good time comparison. I do agree that many save less because they think the government will do it for them. But at the same time, many people are just bad savers in general. Or unlucky. Or foolish. The alternative I see is more welfare and more taxes. Which is in many ways worse. At least SS forces some of the burden upon the recipient. We're not going to let old folks just die on the street homeless, so the alternative is more welfare and less personal responsibility. I don't see how the alternative to no SS comes out as a better outcome.

The problem with DC models is that it's incredibly difficult to project what you'll actually have. Especially doing it 30 years out. That makes planning essentially impossible.

 

[cpwill]

People also tended to die at age 50 back then. And healthcare costs weren't exorbitant.

And both of those things should encourage people now to save more. And yet they save less.

Also, it's worth noting that life-expectancy is a bit tilted by higher rates of child mortality - at the time of passage of SS, the life expectancy for adults (who were paying into the system) was 65.

You're not really make a good time comparison. I do agree that many save less because they think the government will do it for them

... then you have effectively ceded my point.

But at the same time, many people are just bad savers in general. Or unlucky. Or foolish.

yes, and they are more so now because they are encouraged to be so by the presumption that momma government will make sure they don't need to.

The alternative I see is more welfare and more taxes. Which is in many ways worse. At least SS forces some of the burden upon the recipient. We're not going to let old folks just die on the street homeless, so the alternative is more welfare and less personal responsibility. I don't see how the alternative to no SS comes out as a better outcome.

Then I would urge you to check out the alternative that comes out as a better outcome *.

The problem with DC models is that it's incredibly difficult to project what you'll actually have. Especially doing it 30 years out. That makes planning essentially impossible.

It's tricky to do precisely, that is correct. It is not terribly tricky to figure that it will generate a better rate of return than current Social (in)Security while not (in the long run) costing the government as the current model does.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This is in regards to the retirement part of SS.

So, I've always said that I've supported Social Security, but recently, after considering it for a while, I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't have it. It is, essentially, the government forcing people to save their money, and then gives it back to people when they are older. So, the assumption is that people are to dumb to save their money on their own. Even though that is the case for many, that doesn't give the government the right, or give it a good reason, to act in that way. If you didn't save your money when you could have all those years, thats on you, not the federal government, or the rest of the tax payers. I'm fine with a strong social safety net, but unemployment insurance, food stamps etc, are different than a program that takes X among of dollars and gives you X amount of dollars back (possibly a slight increase) later on in life.

So liberals and progressives, convince me otherwise, if you can. Why should we keep SS as a government program?

I hate SS as much as any other libertarian.
However I begrudgingly accept it's existence, for the mere fact that there are to many people who are foolish and don't think about the future.

I think you should be able to switch the money to private investments though.
If you've shown that you can responsibly manage your retirement money.

 

[274ina]

This simple fact means it needs to go away.

No one has a right to recieve anything back after paying into it for a life time.
Besides the ponzi scam fact of SS. And that it pays MORE than a full time job now.

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960),

"The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause."

If one does not have a right to SS, then all do not have a right.

 

[obvious Child]

And both of those things should encourage people now to save more. And yet they save less.

Also, it's worth noting that life-expectancy is a bit tilted by higher rates of child mortality - at the time of passage of SS, the life expectancy for adults (who were paying into the system) was 65.

And how exactly are we to do that?

... then you have effectively ceded my point.

But that doesn't mean it's a catch all. Just because government is going to save SOMETHING for them doesn't mean they aren't going to save anything. Many people wouldn't save anything regardless if there was a social security program or not. There is where your argument fails. It assumes that people are rational actors who will diligently save and not encounter an issue that blows away their savings. As evident by medical bankruptcy and the massive consumption our economy is built on, it seems your model is very much out of touch. I don't think that getting rid of SS will make the masses save any more then they already are (or aren't). They'll probably just do what they always do, think about it later and go out shopping now. In theory yes, your idea is plausible, but it flatly ignores the consumer culture of America.

yes, and they are more so now because they are encouraged to be so by the presumption that momma government will make sure they don't need to.

Except that SS amounts per month aren't enough to live on. Well, we can look at people who do things under the table. They contribute nothing to Social Security, and therefore have no actual SS when they retire. How many of them save enough for retirement? I'm betting exactly none.

Then I would urge you to check out the alternative that comes out as a better outcome *.

In theory that's a decent idea, but your growth rates are downright questionable, especially after the last decade. Furthermore, if someone needs to remove money for a medical incident, that will essentially wipe out any chance of recovery with the market. And if the market takes several years to recover and the user needs the money now, that model falls apart. 7.98% is kind of ridiculously over optimistic in the light of the past 10 years. Try run it at half of your growth rates and see what he has. It's one thing to rely on optimistic data, it's another to take the possibility of real slow growth. A good model should work somewhere in between the two.

 

[iguanaman]

This is in regards to the retirement part of SS.

So, I've always said that I've supported Social Security, but recently, after considering it for a while, I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't have it. It is, essentially, the government forcing people to save their money, and then gives it back to people when they are older. So, the assumption is that people are to dumb to save their money on their own. Even though that is the case for many, that doesn't give the government the right, or give it a good reason, to act in that way. If you didn't save your money when you could have all those years, thats on you, not the federal government, or the rest of the tax payers. I'm fine with a strong social safety net, but unemployment insurance, food stamps etc, are different than a program that takes X among of dollars and gives you X amount of dollars back (possibly a slight increase) later on in life.

So liberals and progressives, convince me otherwise, if you can. Why should we keep SS as a government program?

Maybe you should THINK about the alternative to social security which were poor houses.
Use your head for once, every western nation has some form of retirement "insurance". It means we are civilized.

 

[JayDubya]

Okay. In your Social Security-less world, what happens to retirees who didn't save and now have nothing? We support them via higher taxes to fund more welfare?

Nope. The government needs to get out of charity entirely.