3 ms·

I'm nearly 60. I've been self-employed for the last 25 years. I worked at precisely two jobs that offered any sort of pension funding at all. Next month, I'll

I'm nearly 60. I've been self-employed for the last 25 years. I worked at precisely two jobs that offered any sort of pension funding at all. Next month, I'll be forced to cash out the pension funds from a multinational corporation I worked for for 18 months back in the mid-1980s. $14k. I'll take it :) The point you're making is predicated on the idea that there are only two options: company-owned-and-managed pension plans (typically defined benefit) and individually directed investment based strategies (i.e. 401(k)). However, the problems with both of these (and yes, there are problems with both of them) can be addressed by socialized pension schemes. Make them opt-out (opt-in if you must): the vast majority of people will opt in, the plans will have enormous financial stability (some would argue based on too much economic power, which we can already see said about e.g. Vanguard), and people would not be forced to grapple with investment questions they are generally ill-equipped to answer. For those that really think they can do better by themselves - go for it.

scarface_74 3y ago
Because Social Security has been so well managed…
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  How has it been badly managed?
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Really? In the next 20 years less money will be taken out for current employees than needed to meet current obligations. The “trust fund” is a lie. Either taxes will have to be raised on workers or benefits cut. Social security taxes have been used as part of the current general budget since the 70a
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Also, see myth #4 here: https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html and myth #5 here: https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10...
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Well, I said it was a myth that it was trust fund. The fact is that if you look at current demographics, the number of working age people to retirees that there is no mathematical way that current tax rates can support the commitments. And why would you want more of your taxes going toward current government spending that you have no control over like social security does?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      This was known from the beginning. I'm not a fan of the PR that surrounded the introduction of SS in the USA, but the technical aspects of how it was intended to work have not changed, and have worked as intended thus far. Fixing the demographic issues is relatively easy: just remove or increase the cutoff for SS taxes.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        So it’s easy, just give the government more of your money instead of controlling it yourself? You know if you increase the amount of income that is eligible for social security that means you also increase the benefit amounts. How is paying more taxes that the government can use for whatever it wants better than saving your own money?
        ryandrake 3y ago
        I don't understand why "you control your investment" is such a selling point. If I put $X in and get $Y out, I don't care whether I "control" it or not. Does the ability to choose between dumping your money into Fund A that pays 7% with 0.1% fee or Fund B that pays 7.1% with a 0.2% fee really make you feel like you're empowered? All other things being equal, I'd rather not have to control it. One less web site to have to log into to micromanage something that should just be done for me. Let a index fund manager or the government get me my 7%. I really don't care at all. I guess some people just hate on principle the idea of government doing anything for them, so for them, owning the account gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. I don't get it.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Where is the money going to come from for you to get $y? In 20 years, the government is already going to have to raise taxes to meet then current obligations. How much more do you think they are going to have to raise taxes to meet increase obligations.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

Because Social Security has been so well managed…

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
How has it been badly managed?
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Really? In the next 20 years less money will be taken out for current employees than needed to meet current obligations. The “trust fund” is a lie. Either taxes will have to be raised on workers or benefits cut. Social security taxes have been used as part of the current general budget since the 70a
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Also, see myth #4 here: https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html and myth #5 here: https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10-myths-explained.html https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/10...
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Well, I said it was a myth that it was trust fund. The fact is that if you look at current demographics, the number of working age people to retirees that there is no mathematical way that current tax rates can support the commitments. And why would you want more of your taxes going toward current government spending that you have no control over like social security does?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    This was known from the beginning. I'm not a fan of the PR that surrounded the introduction of SS in the USA, but the technical aspects of how it was intended to work have not changed, and have worked as intended thus far. Fixing the demographic issues is relatively easy: just remove or increase the cutoff for SS taxes.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      So it’s easy, just give the government more of your money instead of controlling it yourself? You know if you increase the amount of income that is eligible for social security that means you also increase the benefit amounts. How is paying more taxes that the government can use for whatever it wants better than saving your own money?
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        I don't understand why "you control your investment" is such a selling point. If I put $X in and get $Y out, I don't care whether I "control" it or not. Does the ability to choose between dumping your money into Fund A that pays 7% with 0.1% fee or Fund B that pays 7.1% with a 0.2% fee really make you feel like you're empowered? All other things being equal, I'd rather not have to control it. One less web site to have to log into to micromanage something that should just be done for me. Let a index fund manager or the government get me my 7%. I really don't care at all. I guess some people just hate on principle the idea of government doing anything for them, so for them, owning the account gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. I don't get it.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Where is the money going to come from for you to get $y? In 20 years, the government is already going to have to raise taxes to meet then current obligations. How much more do you think they are going to have to raise taxes to meet increase obligations.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago