3 ms·

It's a matter of personal responsibility. Granted, there will be people who A: Don't save, B: Invest their savings foolishly, or C: Fall on hard times

It's a matter of personal responsibility. Granted, there will be people who A: Don't save, B: Invest their savings foolishly, or C: Fall on hard times and burn through their savings, but guaranteeing a retirement income will push more people into the A and B categories. I believe that society should help people who fall into the C category, either through welfare programs or nonprofit organizations, but it hurts the rest of society when the people who acted responsibly are required to subsidize those who are in the A or B category. My argument is that it hurts society more to pay for the A and B people than it does to let the A and B people take the consequences of their actions. I argue that the more retirement is subsidized, the more people will rely on the subsidies. The only way to make retirement an institution that runs on its own is to make it the responsibility of the individual.

drusenko 18y ago
Why would it be so bad to force people to save a percentage of their income? If you don't, and guarantee benefits for the C category, then there's a perverse incentive: don't save any money your whole life, get bailed out at the end. In any case, those who choose to not save any money for retirement (whether willfully or ignorantly) are a huge burden on society, one that the rest of us who did save will have to pay for. In that sense, examine this solution: we each have a "personal retirement account", with rules set up in such a way that you can only invest the amount of money above what would provide for a minimally sufficient retirement in "riskier" investments, such as the stock market, and you are forced to save 10% of your earnings into this account, which would follow you from job to job. End result: Everybody has a personally accountable retirement benefit that they directly contributed to their whole life -- it's their money that they saved, and their money that they get. You cannot place the minimum amounts at risk, but you are free to choose how to invest anything above the minimum amounts as you wish. Given that we (eventually) eliminate all social security obligations, we can also completely remove that tax, and several others that currently pay for it.
- dkokelley 18y ago
  I like the mandatory savings plan, provided it is offered as an alternative to social security. The thing with mandatory savings plans (such as 401k's, were they mandated) is that ultimately the money belongs to the individual, and you can effectively access the money as you like when you borrow against it. My point is that the people who are not likely to save on their own accord are the same ones who will effectively spend their savings through debt.

drusenko 18y ago

Why would it be so bad to force people to save a percentage of their income? If you don't, and guarantee benefits for the C category, then there's a perverse incentive: don't save any money your whole life, get bailed out at the end. In any case, those who choose to not save any money for retirement (whether willfully or ignorantly) are a huge burden on society, one that the rest of us who did save will have to pay for. In that sense, examine this solution: we each have a "personal retirement account", with rules set up in such a way that you can only invest the amount of money above what would provide for a minimally sufficient retirement in "riskier" investments, such as the stock market, and you are forced to save 10% of your earnings into this account, which would follow you from job to job. End result: Everybody has a personally accountable retirement benefit that they directly contributed to their whole life -- it's their money that they saved, and their money that they get. You cannot place the minimum amounts at risk, but you are free to choose how to invest anything above the minimum amounts as you wish. Given that we (eventually) eliminate all social security obligations, we can also completely remove that tax, and several others that currently pay for it.

dkokelley 18y ago
I like the mandatory savings plan, provided it is offered as an alternative to social security. The thing with mandatory savings plans (such as 401k's, were they mandated) is that ultimately the money belongs to the individual, and you can effectively access the money as you like when you borrow against it. My point is that the people who are not likely to save on their own accord are the same ones who will effectively spend their savings through debt.