More info why social security is a bad investment

[chiph]

You can do better investing in Treasury Bills yourself than letting the feds do it on your behalf.

Chip H.

[Eric]

This is fine but it (like many other criticism of SS) does so from a utilitarian point of view as opposed to a moral/ethical one.

The stronger argument, in my opinion, is:

SS is immoral because it cripples the individual's right to be responsible for his own financial security. That it is not "insurance" or any sort of earned benefit but rather an intergenerational transfer program (welfare, literally) that forces the old to prey on the young - and makes the young resent the old.

The only people who benefit from SS are scumbag politicians (redundant, I realize) and the people who got in early, who paid little but get much.

For virtually anyone who is younger than 50 today - excepting people who haven't worked, or worked sporadically at menial type jobs - SS is a train wreck of a con.

I know in my own case that if I had just the lump sum of money that SS has stolen from me since I began working when I was 17 I would have a sum that, while perhaps not sufficient to retire on, could be used to make some major investments that would very likely provide enough wealth/assets to retire on long before I reach even 60 years of age. I could buy, for example, 50-75 acres of land around here - and land represents real value, something tangible owned by me. Very much different from the pathetic dependence on a meager dole check that SS is - a dole check that you're only "entitled" to so long as the government wishes to and is capable of providing. One that can be rescinded or dialed back at any time - and which reduces the "beneficiary" to the same degraded state as an EBT recipient.

Of course, I am operating n the assumption that I will never see a penny of SS "benefits" a quarter-century from now.

I doubt America will exist a quarter-century from now - let alone SS.

[chiph]

Yeah, SS is another case of governmental paternalism.

"Well, some people might not save. So we'll require everyone to contribute to a plan of our devising."

Chip H.

[Steve]

My favorite thing about SS is when politicians tell the camera how popular and the interviewer dutifully nods in agreement. It's popular because many percieve it either as money for nothing or getting their own money back...neither of which is at all true.

Further, if it's so damned popular why not let people opt out of it? Seems to me that very few would opt out of this "very popular" program if that were the case.

"I doubt America will exist a quarter-century from now" Sometimes I feel guilty for looking forward to that day. I think we would all be better off as a true republic or federation divided on cultural lines. but, that's another discussion.

[swamprat]

This is fine but it (like many other criticism of SS) does so from a utilitarian point of view as opposed to a moral/ethical one.

The stronger argument, in my opinion, is:

SS is immoral because it cripples the individual's right to be responsible for his own financial security. That it is not "insurance" or any sort of earned benefit but rather an intergenerational transfer program (welfare, literally) that forces the old to prey on the young - and makes the young resent the old.

The only people who benefit from SS are scumbag politicians (redundant, I realize) and the people who got in early, who paid little but get much.

For virtually anyone who is younger than 50 today - excepting people who haven't worked, or worked sporadically at menial type jobs - SS is a train wreck of a con.

I know in my own case that if I had just the lump sum of money that SS has stolen from me since I began working when I was 17 I would have a sum that, while perhaps not sufficient to retire on, could be used to make some major investments that would very likely provide enough wealth/assets to retire on long before I reach even 60 years of age. I could buy, for example, 50-75 acres of land around here - and land represents real value, something tangible owned by me. Very much different from the pathetic dependence on a meager dole check that SS is - a dole check that you're only "entitled" to so long as the government wishes to and is capable of providing. One that can be rescinded or dialed back at any time - and which reduces the "beneficiary" to the same degraded state as an EBT recipient.

Of course, I am operating n the assumption that I will never see a penny of SS "benefits" a quarter-century from now.

I doubt America will exist a quarter-century from now - let alone SS.

I calculated my own "benefit" based on my earnings multiplied by 6.2 percent, which is our portion of SS. My earnings based on 25 years of work or so would buy me a small house in the country. I wish they would shut this damned system down. If I had the full 12.4 percent, i would have 10 acres and a truck.

Even worse is the great ripoff called mediscam. If you are responsible and take care of yourself, you won't likely use it, but will have paid in. If you, smoke, drink sodas, and eat junk food, you are on the system and may become part of the problem.

I work out regularly, try and eat healthy, avoiding bad sugars and bad fats, and try and get regular chiropractic adjustments. Anyone of any age should consider doing that. I'm glad I started at 45 and not later.

Our medical costs would be slashed by at least half if people took better care of themselves and quit buying junk.

We are subsidizing a McDonalds drive in society with our FDA, agricultural and health policies.