No more social security.

Sorry that you got screwed out of your other retirement fund. It sort of tempers my hard stance on SS. I guess diversity of investments is the way to go, and SS can be one component of a strong retirement plan. I'm just always wary of a bureaucrat who has his hands in my pockets.

 

Agreed!

80% of hardworking Americans have neither the time nor the knowledge necessary in order to successfully manage their own 401k retirement plans. Most of them are going to end up DEPENDING upon Social Security in their old age.

Social Security is backed by the "full faith and credit of the US government" which is what We the People can rely upon.

 

Anyone with half a brain (and who are earning enough) can set a little of that money aside and save it.

It's impulsive people who can't control themselves who spend every penny they earn, even when they're earning plenty.

If you don't like the low interest rates in the banks, maybe we should have a talk about the Fed intentionally going out of its way trying to keep interest rates down.

And if you personally need a government bureaucrat to manage your money for you, I'm more than happy to support that as an individual option.
Just check a special box on your tax return, and the money will automatically be taken out.

Does that sound acceptable to you and address all your concerns here?

 

These days many corporations are outsourcing their pension savings plans to third party firms, because corporations these days often do not last as long as they used to, but that way even if they go bankrupt, the pension plan put in place will still be there managed by the other organization.

That requires actually setting aside money though. Not taking money from new company revenues to pay for old retired former workers.

(A concept public employers can't seem to grasp)

 

Setting aside money is common enough!

What is also common is being laid off on a regular basis, having an unexpected expense and becoming to sick to work.

ALL of the above DRAIN those savings and that means that by the time people reach retirement those savings do NOT amount to enough to provide a living income.

Social Security should be EXPANDED to provide a basic retirement income ABOVE the poverty level. Yes, this will be a tax increase but the KNOWLEDGE that you will have a basic living income when you retire meets the REQUIREMENT.

Saving to ensure that you have more than that so you can enjoy traveling or golfing or whatever you want in addition is up to the individuals.

But the BASIC INCOME above poverty level should be MANDATORY for everyone.

 

Ironic since you don't seem to understand the concept of pensions at all.

Unfunded/underfunded pension plan deficits should be DEDUCTED from the wealth of all corporate shareholders past and present.

 

And yet the majority of First Worlders manage to survive it.

Here's an idea: stop making it easy for people to be lazy asshats.

 

It should be 'mandatory' for the select few. The orphan, the disabled, the war veteran, the bonafide refugee, and the very elderly. Everyone else can do what Third Worlders do and live responsibly, and within their means.

 

Untrue. Many ordinary working and middle class people survive a lifetime (with all the usual setbacks and illnesses etc) without ever taking a single dollar of 'assistance'.

 

You think that social security is not saving for retirement?

 

Social Security is not assistance, it is not free, it is not welfare and it is not an entitlement. It is program to support people that are retired or disabled and one has to pay into the system to get it.

 

Sure, but I was just responding to the OP who suggested we all need above poverty guaranteed income in order to survive the usual setbacks in life. Nonsense, obviously .. since the majority of us in the First World manage just fine.

 

You evidently have never had a major injury that has taken you out of employment for good..

 

I don't live in America, and we have universal public healthcare here. You have to try quite hard to end up relying on welfare in old age, here. You need to have failed to maintain relationships with those would otherwise have supported you (spouse, friends, children, siblings, cousins, etc etc), plus never saved any money, plus lived above your means, etc etc etc. That's a LOT of poor choices.

 

I haven't worked in years, and some of our friends are retiring in their 50's. None of us have ever taken any form of assistance, nor will. We are we are because we sacrificied for decades and planned for contingencies.

Either way, we have maintained strong, stable, and mutually supportive relationships, so no one would ever be left hanging. There will always be someone to feed and house us (and vice versa).

 

100% agree!

Without accountability there can be no trust. At least with the government and SS we can hold them accountable if they renege.

The GOP has deliberately written the laws so that investment brokers can NEVER be held accountable which is WHY they got away with PONZI SCAMS like the predatory mortgage lending that wrecked the economy in 2008.

 

Except that the LONG TERM IMPACT means that TENS of MILLIONS of hardworking Americans now face retirements with nothing Social Security which is a crappy outcome for working hard their entire lives.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/06/07/future-of-prosperity-retirement-report-000663

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-broke-baby-boomers-time-face-reality

Insulting hardworking Americans duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

You seem to be changing the topic of that argument now.
You had brought up individuals not being able to manage their retirement plans. That's the argument I responded to.

 

Expanding on the REASONS WHY people are unable to manage their own 401k's is NOT changing the topic.

 

What do personal emergencies and not earning enough money have to do with managing their 401k's ??
I'm not seeing a logical connection there.