Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe SS can be voluntary but only if there is an alternative 401-k type of plan that people must invest at least an equal amount in, with that investment being mandatory with no refunds until retirement. The account would be treated just like any other personal asset for estate purposes, but cannot be borrowed against.
If we don't enforce the saving of money for people's future retirement years, we will end up with tens of millions of indigents who have paid in nothing and then we'll be told that we cannot let them starve and live under bridges at which time we'll end up bailing them out just like we have the banks.
I have many relatives who would end up broke and indigent; some because of their stupidity, some just don't make that much. We only need to look around to see that at least a third of our population, or more, have no idea how to handle their money. Tens of millions live from paycheck to paycheck and spend every cent they get on booze, drugs, guns, hunting, fishing, cars, gambling, porn, collectibles (junk), boats, RVs, ATVs, campers and tons more extraneous stuff. It's a shame some folks lack a good set of limits and boundaries, but we must protect ourselves from more trillion dollar boondoggles.
If given a choice, even some middle class folks would put off investing for retirement so they can spend more on the here and now.
An alternative is okay, so long as we make it mandatory and get it out of Government hands so that Congress can't use it for their smoke and mirror methods of counting it as part of the budget they can spend each year.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I believe it should as well. As I was forced to "volunteer" for this social program, before reaching the age of majority, by having my parents "enroll' me.....I should have the option of removing myself now that I have the knowledge, and capacity to make my own decisions. Plain and simple.
I don't know how that would be possible. We are not paying social security for ourselves. We are paying for social security for the people who are already on it. If we were to some how opt out, who would pay for the people on SS now? Hey I am all for it, but it just is not possible. I would like to see the age of SS recipients rise to something around 70.
When it was instituted, the life expectancy of people was far less than it is today. It was never meant to be a retirement fund, which is what it has become today.
I believe SS can be voluntary but only if there is an alternative 401-k type of plan that people must invest at least an equal amount in, with that investment being mandatory with no refunds until retirement. The account would be treated just like any other personal asset for estate purposes, but cannot be borrowed against.
If we don't enforce the saving of money for people's future retirement years, we will end up with tens of millions of indigents who have paid in nothing and then we'll be told that we cannot let them starve and live under bridges at which time we'll end up bailing them out just like we have the banks.
.......................
.
social security was never intended to be someones retirement,,,it was meant to SUPPLEMENT a persons pension....but pensions went out the window since the 80's-90's when the yuppies said they dont want pensions, they wanted something mobile
I believe SS can be voluntary but only if there is an alternative 401-k type of plan that people must invest at least an equal amount in, with that investment being mandatory with no refunds until retirement. The account would be treated just like any other personal asset for estate purposes, but cannot be borrowed against.
If we don't enforce the saving of money for people's future retirement years, we will end up with tens of millions of indigents who have paid in nothing and then we'll be told that we cannot let them starve and live under bridges at which time we'll end up bailing them out just like we have the banks.
I have a couple of questions.
1. How would you insure the principle in these accounts.
2. What provisions would you recommend for those whose earnings are at or barely above the poverty line?
3. What provisions would you make for those whose 401K like investment is inadequate to provide for them in the future?
Though SS was intended as a supplement to a persons other retirement plans, it has in fact become the primary, if not sole, retirement funding source for far too many people. The program has expanded to include things never originally intended.
The American people would not have the stomach for allowing people who for lack of investing, or losses due to market conditions, have no means of support in their "golden" years to exist in abject poverty.
When I withdrew from Social Security, I deliberately took the same amount that would have gone to SS and invested it privately. It was at a time when there were no insured accounts. No 401K's. None of the regulations that are in place today.
I studied up on investing. I made successes. I made mistakes. But, over the years, there were far more Pluses then Minuses. FAR MORE. Yes, I had to pay attention to what my investment advisers were doing. Yes I was involved. But, it paid off.
Today, the guaranteed amount (lifetime) I can get from my investments is more than 5 times what Social Security would have paid. And this is after paying for my own medical insurance.
There were / are investments made that are over and above the "Social Security" contribution investments.
I will be the first one to say that getting out of social security IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. It should not be done lightly.
I believe SS can be voluntary but only if there is an alternative 401-k type of plan that people must invest at least an equal amount in, with that investment being mandatory with no refunds until retirement. The account would be treated just like any other personal asset for estate purposes, but cannot be borrowed against.
If we don't enforce the saving of money for people's future retirement years, we will end up with tens of millions of indigents who have paid in nothing and then we'll be told that we cannot let them starve and live under bridges at which time we'll end up bailing them out just like we have the banks.
I have many relatives who would end up broke and indigent; some because of their stupidity, some just don't make that much. We only need to look around to see that at least a third of our population, or more, have no idea how to handle their money. Tens of millions live from paycheck to paycheck and spend every cent they get on booze, drugs, guns, hunting, fishing, cars, gambling, porn, collectibles (junk), boats, RVs, ATVs, campers and tons more extraneous stuff. It's a shame some folks lack a good set of limits and boundaries, but we must protect ourselves from more trillion dollar boondoggles.
If given a choice, even some middle class folks would put off investing for retirement so they can spend more on the here and now.
An alternative is okay, so long as we make it mandatory and get it out of Government hands so that Congress can't use it for their smoke and mirror methods of counting it as part of the budget they can spend each year.
I tend to agree.
I do not like any kind of government mandate on a person's choice. But I have no doubt that your prediction would come true (already has actually).
So it might be worth instituting a compulsory retirement account for every American. Mandatory contributions of 15% from everything you earn from whenever you are old enough to fill out a W-4 until retirement. Hell, you could even convert Social Security to that, but I suppose many would howl about privatization, as if there is something wrong with managing my own private savings.
But...it would open up a whole new array of problems. People would still make numerous mistakes and Congress would again and again be summoned to "do something." You would certainly have make it inviolable as people would be making hardship withdrawals constantly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
