Social Security vs Investing Yourself

Nothing much to add here but it appears to me that the world is running out of people like Doug who want to better themselves and are prepared to take responsibility for their own situation/outcome. Many people are afraid of investing. While Paul & Doug's point is valid, in practice it would fail. My parents owned a small machine shop and their employees for the most part passed on the 401k offerings. I have heard this same outcome from other business owners as well. People are the reason these things exist. They need the assistance.

I enjoy Abe's knowledge and practical application of reality. In the end, do the best with what you got for you and your loved ones. I enjoy the financial markets but admit they are complicated. Sure, it is simple to just buy an S&P500 ETF, but that confidence comes from understanding in some way. It is also a long game and short term thinking has or has always clouded human behavior.
 
I'm not arguing against SS. My complaint is how inefficient gubment operations are. I made the comparison as a curiosity. I am living large on my and my spouse's SS. It get's in my craw that you are paying for my good living. I have a big pile of money sitting in investments that I don't consume because I can get most of the money for my retirement from you. The enhancements Congress have added to SS are ludicrous. As I mentioned, for who knows why, my wife is getting 3 times as much Social Security than she earned due to 'spousal benefit', which allows her to get half of the value of my SS instead of her paltry SS benefit. It's clearly a benefit she did not earn because she did not work most of her life.

But like everyone else, I will take the loopholes I can.

Since the SS taxes are forced, why not have a forced 401k instead that is managed by the employer. They stick the money in a conservative fund and everyone can benefit in a greater way from their well-managed 401k rather than the gubment-run SS.

The basic premise I preach is that nothing can be done well by government by its very nature. It runs on laws. So if a program is set, it is set up by a law that is well-meaning, but usually, poorly researched. Once passed, it has no ability to adapt and change course on the fly. If it is flawed, a new bill has to slog though Congress to adjust the performance of a program. The shackles on government programs are significant.
 
I could get behind an "American 401k". The concept if implemented well could help or replace social security. It would be sort of a self fulling prophecy as that much guaranteed money flowing into the market would keep the market from ever going/staying down. But it is at the intersection of the private/public world. One could make the case that it would be public funds propping up private companies even though the public folks would benefit from the outcome.

That is one of the issues with government anything - nobody is allowed to benefit (other than the folks in the background...)
 
Bassman2003 said:
One could make the case that it would be public funds propping up private companies even though the public folks would benefit from the outcome.
Click to expand...
Let me re-write that sentence for you, if you don't mind. :)

One could make the case that it would be public funds INVESTING in private companies and the public folks would benefit from the outcome.
 
It is all perspective. Imho, real "investing" only happens at the IPO stage when the company actually receives the money raised. Everything beyond that is just stock trading. 'Propping up' is mentioned because a program this large would be a firehose of buying on a weekly basis. The tail wagging the dog in some way. The companies would have an artificial valuation that would never deflate as any price weakness would be met with next week's buying quota. Basically, the markets would be distorted and over time, the Ponzy scheme would just be relocated to the equity markets. But we would probably be better off for it.
 
I get your points, but don't assume more investment money flooding into the market will just go to the same companies. More capital being available means more opportunities for startups and small/medium companies to expand. It might even boost housing construction and loans at lower rates.

I'm not an economist and I don't really care about the big picture, I just wanted the chance to opt-out of the government's ponzi scheme. Being forced to pay for someone else's beer and cigarettes, at the risk of going to prison for refusing, is not my idea of a free country.

Totally different than paying taxes which actually go for the benefit of all citizens, such as defense, roads, security, etc. Even though nobody will agree with how that money is spent, and there will be tons of waste, at least the intent is to benefit society as a whole and not just to prop up folks who can't seem to take care of their own needs.
 
Last edited:
Here's a fun-fact. When Congress was working on the OASI Act (it didn't originally have disability included), they wanted to include national health insurance. It was the American Medical Association that lobbied against it.
 
The same thing occurred in the UK when the National Health Service was started after WW2. At the time, it was about the British Medical Association being worried about doctors losing income when working for the NHS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top