AggiePops said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

SS is an entitlement because it is a defined benefits plan and it is paid out by plan terms regardless of the input for those eligible. It is also paid using present revenue dollars such that current contributors are providing the funds used for current recipients, and there is no holding or investment of the contributions.

People routinely receive far more than they ever contribute, hence the problem. SS also pays disability to non contributors.

---

It used to be a hedge. Pay a little in and if u live long enough the government helps u. And only 65% of people lived to see significant benefits so you may not ever see much of what u put in. But u didn't put in alot to begin with so u didn't feel it much in ur paycheck.

Not a great plan but it was more of (live longer than my retirement preparation holds out) insurance.

But now its....pay a significant portion of ur income and ur employer will too because we are gonna make u.

Personally I would rather have gotten more money off the top from my employer and invested that into an index fund.

with survivor's benefits and others, like disability it has changed to....everyone takes out more than they put in and ur wages are depressed because of the forced employer contribution


Which isn't even a plan....just robbery at gunpoint.

And yeah...boomers implemented alot of these poorly thought out changes and refused to revamp it when Bush proposed privatizing it.

So thanks boomers.

---

Getting a little more upfront and investing wisely sounds good and is. For people clued in to investing who can do it and make smart investment decisions. Economics is not typically a required high school subject and even a single, basic class isn't enough to create a nation of savvy investors. You'd need every American to have sufficient education in investing to make it work, and that includes convincing low paid workers who live paycheck to paycheck to consistently budget an investment allotment even when it squeezed day to day expenses. A huge portion of Americans now know zip about investing. Convince them to turn the amount they now pay in SS taxes to an investment company? For many, the fact they never see that money in-hand is the only reason it isn't spent when received. The only real positive of SS is it forces some economic responsibility on people who wouldn't do so on their own.

---

So we should forcibly rob everyone of their money because alot of people are STUPID?

that is a very slippery slope my friend.

Good luck with that argument.

---

Not stupid. Uneducated. Grow up in a household where investing is common and you at least pick up the basics and understand the importance enough to want to learn more. Grow up in a household where there is no knowledge or trust in investing and you'll likely be the same. So… start with an education that includes a thorough understanding and confidence in investing and make sure that is spread across all socio-economic groups. THEN you can talk about doing away with SS and replace it with investment based planning for retirement.

Otherwise you simply have far more people collecting welfare. Not preferable.

---

Just because a group of people refuse to educate themselves does not mean they are entitled to collect welfare.

The drive to improve urself is born of necessity.

Welfare programs and their existence is precisely the reason so few people try to better their situation and so many people decide its better to depend on them rather than stand on their own two feet.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

SS is an entitlement because it is a defined benefits plan and it is paid out by plan terms regardless of the input for those eligible. It is also paid using present revenue dollars such that current contributors are providing the funds used for current recipients, and there is no holding or investment of the contributions.

People routinely receive far more than they ever contribute, hence the problem. SS also pays disability to non contributors.

---

It used to be a hedge. Pay a little in and if u live long enough the government helps u. And only 65% of people lived to see significant benefits so you may not ever see much of what u put in. But u didn't put in alot to begin with so u didn't feel it much in ur paycheck.

Not a great plan but it was more of (live longer than my retirement preparation holds out) insurance.

But now its....pay a significant portion of ur income and ur employer will too because we are gonna make u.

Personally I would rather have gotten more money off the top from my employer and invested that into an index fund.

with survivor's benefits and others, like disability it has changed to....everyone takes out more than they put in and ur wages are depressed because of the forced employer contribution


Which isn't even a plan....just robbery at gunpoint.

And yeah...boomers implemented alot of these poorly thought out changes and refused to revamp it when Bush proposed privatizing it.

So thanks boomers.

---

Getting a little more upfront and investing wisely sounds good and is. For people clued in to investing who can do it and make smart investment decisions. Economics is not typically a required high school subject and even a single, basic class isn't enough to create a nation of savvy investors. You'd need every American to have sufficient education in investing to make it work, and that includes convincing low paid workers who live paycheck to paycheck to consistently budget an investment allotment even when it squeezed day to day expenses. A huge portion of Americans now know zip about investing. Convince them to turn the amount they now pay in SS taxes to an investment company? For many, the fact they never see that money in-hand is the only reason it isn't spent when received. The only real positive of SS is it forces some economic responsibility on people who wouldn't do so on their own.

---

So we should forcibly rob everyone of their money because alot of people are STUPID?

that is a very slippery slope my friend.

Good luck with that argument.

---

Not stupid. Uneducated. Grow up in a household where investing is common and you at least pick up the basics and understand the importance enough to want to learn more. Grow up in a household where there is no knowledge or trust in investing and you'll likely be the same. So… start with an education that includes a thorough understanding and confidence in investing and make sure that is spread across all socio-economic groups. THEN you can talk about doing away with SS and replace it with investment based planning for retirement.

Otherwise you simply have far more people collecting welfare. Not preferable.

---

Just because a group of people refuse to educate themselves does not mean they are entitled to collect welfare.

The drive to improve urself is born of necessity.

Welfare programs and their existence is precisely the reason so few people try to better their situation and so many people decide its better to depend on them rather than stand on their own two feet.

---

So let's take a single parent at or near poverty level who is working their tail off to put a roof over his/her family's head and put enough food on the table so they don't starve. He/she shaves things to eke out a whole $10 a month for investing. Not going to get much professional help at that level and on line trading requires a plan, scrutiny of company background and finances, and close attention to how things are moving. Most single parents in that situation, if they could even do it, would be doing very well to get a consistent average 7-8% return a year. And of course, the first family case of unusual financial need will wipe that out because there is likely no insurance and certainly no savings other than the bit scrimped out for investment.

Too bad for them, huh?