Yes...^^^

That's what I meant.
You have made both the argument for abolishing social security as it presently exists + also the argument against a UBI system.

- Social security was born a lie. It was sold as an earned benefit to get public support, however it barely functions as an earned benefit [payouts exceed the amount paid in for most] and the payout does not even keep up with the rate of inflation for the people who truly contributed enough to cover their own payout.

Spoiler!

- By selling social security as an employee funded retirement program [instead of as a welfare ponzi program that supports current retirees using the taxes collected from current workers] the majority of people seem to have come to rely on social security as their main source of retirement income. They see it as something that they have earned and have a right to, not as an entitlement.

- If social security as it currently exists were eliminated and it was replaced with a UBI program [along with other welfare schemes] then I would expect that individuals would at least be aware of the need to fund their own retirements though they may still fail to do so.

- The danger of UBI [or widespread reliance on the government for basic sustenance] is that it does give the government and outsized level of power over the individual who is so reliant as the government that gives can also increase/decrease/eliminate that support. It is a big carrot AND a big stick.

****ing Nancy she hated Bush. Me I loved that crazy son of a gun. More then his daddy. More than The Orange Patriot. Both would be a lot better than who we have now.

That is already the goal. Doubtful many people can live solely on SS and not be living in a tent and eating dog food

any social safety net requires profit/value to come from somewhere. it can't be free. in the case of social security, they basically are directly taking your labor value at 12% and giving it to retired people. the program has had a terrible ROI and could certainly have done much better... if it was invested for more profit.

it's just inefficient. it has to be run for a profit either way. funds in SS right now are invested for a profit, just in instruments that return almost nothing.

old people were dying in the streets because we apparently don't give a **** about family here. lots of countries don't have a social security type system but families stick together.

it seems kind of ****ed up that you give up 12% (6 on both sides, your employer pays 6 too) for your entire career, that's all going to be giving **** tier returns, when you could have done much better to invest it yourself, and all because some families would just let their grandparents die homeless. that's a cultural problem we're all paying for. paying for the situation where:

- the person didn't save for retirement
- their family abandoned them

Or if it hadn't been robbed

More than that, it’s 13%. You pay 6.5% and your employer pays the other 6.5%.

Pretty substantial

This.

Long story short it is a safety net program and this should be an RP thread.

It is a cultural problem. You wouldn't believe how many of my friend's parents basically kicked them out of the house the day they turned 18. If my parents did that to me there is no fukn way I'd let them live with me once they got too old. Also boomers have done a horrific job saving for retirement considering how many of them are still working

That is how I've always known it to be. Part of a three legged stool

1- social security to provide a base line level of income. Keep grandma and grandpa from eating catfood and living on the street.
2- pensions - private or government, depending on what you did for a living. Now that's basically your 401K since corporations have given up on pensions (often by going bankrupt and then screwing over workers for their earned pensions)
3 - personal savings. Could be home equity as you downsize, other investments, etc.

Think of SS as a fixed annuity payment. A base level of income. By relying on that it lets you be more aggressive in your pension investments

Just do what singapore does:

1. Have an annual compulsory deposit (tax) to your IRA
2. The balance is visible by you, because you are the one paying into it
3. Invest the money as you want (like an IRA)
4. You can start pulling from it when you turn 65
5. Upon death, your account is transferable to heirs (SS is not)

They actually do the same compulsory accounts for healthcare, and it DRIVES DOWN healthcare costs hugely.

Singapore is really the goat country when it comes to their programs, because all the programs are individually viewed/managed/contributed to.

Guess who doesn't get to participate? People who don't produce. womp womp womp.

These responses capture things very well.

Op, I'm not sure if you're just retarded, trying to bait, or simply cannot understand that privatization would mean the ultimate goal of whatever operating entity, person, or group would be profit and not the sustained availability and growth of a social security program. How would you incentivize the entity to operate with the interests of the nation that span generations as opposed to quarterly cycles?


But let's flip things around, what would a privatized social security program look like to you, or in the context of your question? I think that would at the very least allow someone to explain why it may not be the best idea.