By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - New Legislative Body - Super Congress

Kasz216 said:

Social security is for people who can't afford to plan for retirement...

and forcing them to do it anyway.

Sure most other people could do a better job. (Though a couple would blow it).

Get rid of social security... and chances are the poor people who can't afford it, instead will spend that money on bills and crap and probably still go bankrupt...

and then it will take more government money to spend on them anyway. 

Honestly if anything, social security should work like an actual investment fund, where the money is invested.

Rather then being used by the US to buy bonds for itself so it can spend that money elsewhere.

It would be like if I was your investment broker, and I took your money and bought "bonds" from myself stating that when you retire i'll pay you the money back +5%.

There really isn't anything backing it.


Denmark is making like 10%+ a year with their investments.

Social Security should work like government retirement programs that the states have.

First, you can opt out and invest however you like. Secondly, if you do choose their program, its invested in a basket of markets and usually returns significant percentages (OPERS was 7-8% when I was in it). Thirdly, you opt out of any other programs if you want to (in my case, working for the govt. meant I was exempt from social security taxes). Fourthly, you can take your money out of the system less pentalties and get a big lump sum check if you ever quick your job before retirement.

Optimally, Social Security should be a default choice for all Americans - use it if you like, dump it if you don't. If you do keep it, you get a very conservative investment portfolio of bonds, real estate and very few, dividend-focused stocks. However, you can opt out at any time and take your earnings, less a penalty.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network

The thing about retirement is that it is best to think of it as being "independently wealthy" meaning you don't have to work, because you have sufficient income that you don't have to. Individuals who are independently wealthy don't have jobs, they own assets which produce revenue. The idea that one thinks they can save up enough money and burn through it, and live off it, isn't going to work. With people living longer, and medical breakthroughs, there is no guarantee of anything. As it is going, the concept of retirement is being phased out. People will get sold catastrophic health insurance, to keep you alive in event you are in real bad shape, but beyond that, most people are now going to have to work until they drop dead. This is particularly true with pensions no longer being around. And people who think that playing the "bet on paper asset inflation" (aka "buy low and sell high") to get good returns, will have surprises coming to them.



leatherhat said:
A sick joke- that will undoubtedly be passed!

or vetoed



MARCUSDJACKSON said:
leatherhat said:
A sick joke- that will undoubtedly be passed!

or vetoed

Well, considering it's the cenerpiece of Obama's new compromise debt ceiling plan....

I doubt it.



Kasz216 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
leatherhat said:
A sick joke- that will undoubtedly be passed!

or vetoed

Well, considering it's the cenerpiece of Obama's new compromise debt ceiling plan....

I doubt it.

good point