Should social security be voluntary?

Post Reply New Topic

Didn't mean to suggest that you weren't. I don't think people should be expected to pay in if they can't afford it. I wouldn't allow "opting out", I'd just raise the threshold at which you are expected to pay, without taking away your entitlements.

There is no threshold, only a maximum of 128,400, for paying social security tax. Folks just getting by with a minimum wage job have to pay into Social Security.

But, lifelong minimum wage earners could get as much as 75% of their paycheck in benefits, if they don't claim benefits until they are 70. Benefit checks are significantly less if you take benefits earlier.

The rich don't pay for the poor.

They get the same SS benefit formula as the poor.

In US dollars
In 2018, the maximum SS for people born before 1959 is $2,788 + 32% * (2,788)=$44, 161.92 / yr for life.
In 2018, the maximum SS for people born after 1959 is $2,788 + 24% * (2,788) = $41, 485.44 / yr for life.

with yearly COLA (cost of living) increases

Yes, a lot of people think they can save for retirement on their own, but have trouble with the basics, like setting aside enough money every month.

I should say - no-one but very extreme libertarians seriously advocate actually abolishing the welfare state here Anyone who wants it stripped is considered a nutcase. Your brand of nightwatchman-type politics would not go down well in the UK. I don't want the disabled kicked off ESA/DLA or unemployment benefits taken away.

I don't understand what nightwatchman-type politics are, sorry. Could you explain please?

Also, I'm not saying abolish it, since people do want to keep it. I just want some kind of legal process to drop out, so that at least I can do so and others can keep their social security since I don't want to remove that from anyone.


Oh okay. Yeah that really would be good for those living just barely above the poverty line (which is a surprisingly harder line to live on than being under the poverty line due to welfare availability for those under but not those barely above) but is it fair to others that must pay for them? I can see both ways, that it would be fair but yet can also be seen as unfair. So I wonder.
I'll side note that I do go to a full on university almost for free because government helps with a large portion of it, but even then I feel bad while at the same time I don't because I know I will one day be able to pay into a pool that helps students that were in my position so that will be my way of paying back. So perhaps something similar could be said about paying into social security, and if one never does, then it's unfortunate and likely due to their career not advancing far enough or other financial problems; while on the other hand, when their career picks up, they too will pay which would also assist those that were in their position. So I can see it both being fair and unfair. What are your thoughts on this?

See here. No welfare state whatsoever. Police, courts, military. That's it.

Wow. I can assure that most libertarians in the US aren't like that, the more extreme side that hold the night watchman state view would be the minarchists, who advocate for exactly that. Then that reminds me of the even more extreme side: anarcho-capitalists that are in the overall libertarian movement and want the whole state abolished. Quite a diverse movement or entity, and the party itself is too.

I don't know where I'd stand on the U.S. political side of things. I don't know; I don't live there, so it's irrelevant. I'm more into UK politics. I live here.

What is the libertarian movement like there, or any libertarian-based parties or individuals?

One point not made in this discussion is "private accounts".

If you had a *private* SS account, and your yearly 12.4% of earnings total going into SS was instead invested in the stock market, you would have tremendously more money upon retirement.

Instead, moronically, your retirement money is invested in low yielding US treasuries.

I thought about bringing up privatization, but I'm not sure how well that would be received and I'm not very educated on it; however, I did not know that it could be that much better. I'm not surprised, given how inefficient the government is at spending.

The libertarian movement is really associated with the right-wing, but U.S.-style libertarianism isn't popular here. Quite a few Tory MPs are libertarian or libertarian-leaning. UKIP had/have a sizeable libertarian element to them - the party used to be Thatcherite before they moved leftwards and became more populist. The party was divided into two groups - the classical liberals/libertarians and the old-school fuddy duddy ultra-traitionalist moralistic social conservatives. The only really libertarian party today is the tiny Libertarian Party UK. For Britain is a minor ultra right-wing party that really campaigns on immigration and Islam. UKIP is still around but I'm not a member.

Last edited by Tequila on 20 Aug 2018, 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In all, just 54% of Americans invest in the market, either through individual stocks, mutual funds, pensions or retirement plans like a 401(k), according to Gallup. That's down 11% since the Great Recession.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/20/invest ... index.html

Ooo. Thank you for that information!