Should social security be voluntary?

Post Reply New Topic

Can you collect while you're temporarily injured, and still hold a job but just simply on break due to injury/illness?

Indeed. And, let us remember that, while it was Ronald Reagan who included the Social Security "assets" on his federal budget (without spending them) to offset his military expenses, it was Bill Clinton who actually started spending them.

Nobody to blame, then? Hardly. "A plague o' both your houses!"

We have Statutory Sick Pay for those too ill to work (up to 28 weeks), and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit for those injured or diseased.

Interesting, I wish it were like that here, then there would be more reason for me to want to stay in social security and overall that just seems like something that should be included in social security. I know in the US, one must be injured long-term to be eligible to collect anything.

If you're long-term sick or disabled, you go on Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which is what I was on. This, combined with other benefits, gives about US$1,100 per month but you must qualify, and the requirements are quite strict. You must actually be disabled to qualify for them. Some people scam the system but if they are found out, they are punished. I was arguing for a tougher system, so that the abusers are rooted out.

I should say: in a British context I would be considered right-wing. In an American context I would be left-wing, but without the rhetoric.

I know the old fashioned conservatives support social security and the current welfare system, just advocating for tighter control to weed out people abusing it; but, that's probably just me that sees it as something of a bipartisan issue (the GOP does support social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., contrary to the popular belief of their opponents).

So many people are on social security without actually needing it here as well, with one popular excuse I hear to be "back pain" (I do not mean to discredit those that have a legitimately bad back). I think it would be nice if the whole welfare system were made stricter to minimize abuse.

The problem is that circumstances are different. Here in the UK there was a problem during the Labour years with people getting a lot of benefits they weren't necessarily entitled to. This has been tightened up, but the benefits system can be quite malicious towards those genuinely in need.

Ah, but we both know, you and I both do, that if it's made voluntary many if not most people would in fact abandon it. The young because they have all the time in the world to save (they think) and are sure they'll be rich tomorrow; the old because they need that money urgently right now for something else. And if it's abandoned wholesale, at some point it can't sustain itself. So yes, to make it voluntary is, for all intents and purposes, to end it.

And actually this experiment has already been done, and it has failed spectacularly; that is, the disappearance of the employers' defined benefit pension from workers' benefits (source: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p1.html), with the expectation that workers would just pick up the slack with IRAs and 401(k) plans. Which were supposed to accrue interest at astronomical rates forever, etc., making us all millionaires by age 50.

Didn't work that way. In fact, nowadays, the average retirement savings for families aged 50 to 55 is about $125K. For families aged 56 to 61, it's about $165K (Source, and it was updated this year: https://www.thebalance.com/average-reti ... ge-4155888).

Given that pension elimination started in earnest about 25 years ago, these folks would have been 25 to 31 years old when they started saving for retirement. So they had 20 to 25 years to save (and accrue interest/dividends) in their IRAs and 401(k)s... and if you assume 0 interest, and a steady savings rate (both untrue and vastly oversimplified) these totals would mean that the people saved about $6K per year... max. Obviously they did get some interest and they probably got employer matching for the 401(k)s, so they actually saved LESS than that annually. Also, of course, they'd have higher salaries, and save more, each year, so it's not a flat rate, either.

Salting away $6000 per year per family, regardless of the actual savings curve, or how much is interest or dividends, is not going to keep someone alive for very long in retirement. That net savings, $125K to $165K? That's between 2 and 3 years income at 55K per year. And remember, we're all being told we have to have $1,000,000 in the bank to retire. If it took these guys 25 years to come up with 125K, they'll never make it.

Social security is going to be a lot of people's lifelines, and we've already done the social experiment to prove that most folks couldn't manage to replace their employer pensions, effectively, on their own. There's absolutely no reason to believe that this would change if it were social security, rather than the defined benefit pension, that they were "given the opportunity to manage independently".

Sorry to disagree, and I don't mean to be disagreeable about it, but I've actually lived through that social experiment, and I know how badly it has harmed people. I'm severely averse to harming the next cohort even more.

Sorry for such a short response to your long one, I read it and I appreciate that you do genuinely care -- I can easily disagree with those who believe that they are doing good, and I appreciate it.

At the least, I can say, at least just for myself: I know I am not everyone, and I am very determined to retire by 40. Granted, I plan on maintaining a down to earth lifestyle and keeping things simple, and I know most people don't when they have money -- my great grandpa was a very good craftsman, retired at 40 with a million dollars, and combined with not living a fancy lifestyle, he just lived off the interest; of course, that would need to be a lot more money now, but I plan on working past my planned retirement age, to do fun work that won't pay much and I will be investing for the long-term as soon as I graduate, after paying off debt (which isn't a lot of debt, I'll be at home another year after graduation to pay it off and start life outside home as clean as possible).

Sorry about the tangent. I am just determined to be as much of a pilot of my own life as possible, and if I'm ever given the opportunity to opt out of social security, I will and put that money straight into investment. You're right about most people not being good at spending and saving, perhaps many people have become too dependent on a safety net. I wish it weren't that way.

On a side note, I do have some money invested at the present and I do day trading as well.

Not even the Swiss allow this. There are taxes. You have to pay them. It just turns out that Northern and Western European countries are more generous with regard to their welfare states.

Yeah it is pretty much a tax I suppose; I've heard that the US government has spent social security funds on government operations, some defending their spending of social security funds, on matters like military, claiming that social security is experiencing a surplus.

With social security, based on what people have told me in favor of it, I feel like "Let us take your money so that you can have it later so you don't end up homeless and die. We will come to your house and kill you if you do not comply." (because, reality is, if push comes to shove, they will come knocking for an arrest and likely beat or kill one if one resists arrest). Not a fan of that thought. Regular taxes... sure (even though I'd argue Federal taxes are unlawful; but, am more than happy to pay state and municipal taxes); but, at the same time, social security is "for your own good" yet they will use physical force and even kill someone for not abiding.

I guess what I am ultimately saying again, just really emphasizing/repeating myself, that I do not want to pay social security but I will not try to avoid it since I do not want to get arrested (and I wouldn't resist arrest, but those that do for any reason will face grave, often literally, consequences).

This was never as much of a problem as it was made out to be. The sums involved were insignificant and not much has been done to address actual fraud; predictably, clamping down on "fraud" has only hurt legitimate claimants.

The much bigger issue was that the Treasury was very bad at calculating tax credit entitlement and should never have been doing so in the first place. Brown made the system much more complicated because he wanted to increase his own power and influence. The result was that people were unintentionally overpaid, and then chased up for huge sums of money they often couldn't repay, or they were unintentionally underpaid and had to go without essentials. This is one of the theoretical benefits of Universal Credit, but it hasn't really materialised.
-------
Now, I don't know a huge amount about how "social security" operates in the US, but personally I don't think your ability to claim should be linked to your payment record, and those on low incomes shouldn't have to pay. Letting the rich opt-out defeats the purpose; the whole point is that they're paying for the poor. It would make a lot of sense to simply combine all the separate income taxes, but in the UK I know that National Insurance (which I think is our closest equivalent to your SS system) is one of the more popular taxes and people like knowing that the money is theoretically ringfenced (even thought it isn't necessarily actually ringfenced).

This was very common. A lot of complacency went on. I remember being really hacked off with Labour's authoritarianism.

I'm actually poor and come from a line of poor people, lived barely above the poverty line growing up. In the US, while a few hundred dollars only looks like a small amount to most people, it's a lot of money to poor folk. While most poor folk might not want to withdraw from social security, I am one that does since I am at a young age to better utilize that money for better long-term investment (frankly, with my genetics, I'm at a predisposition to very likely die before I will even get to withdraw from social security -- so it's a waste for me).

Originally, if I am not mistaken, social security in the US was meant to be given to the government to invest the money for payers into companies or other projects, and then late in life, those paying into it would get to withdraw the earnings on their investments.

Social Security calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most. We apply a formula to these earnings and arrive at your basic benefit, or “primary insurance amount."