Should Americans have the choice to opt out of Social Security?

[Just Started]

you already have that option, it's called death

[Waldo]

No, Americans should not have a choice.

Insurance spreads risk. The bigger the pool, the smaller the risk.

[Foghorn]

Since it is a Ponzi scheme and near collapse it would be nice to bolt. However, SS, just like 0dingus' health care law, will be an albatross on taxpayers heads until the revolution.

[Vito1964]

401ks don't pay 3x what you put in.

It's not a piggy bank for you, it's to support our elderly today. The workers of the future will supplement your retirement. So no, you can't opt out.

[YesWeCan]

Suicide?
Or you can shut the fuck up so good can be proud of you for helping people but in reality you wanna keep all of your money to yourself!

[lala]

and your money earns 10% annually,

You will never be able to guarantee this! So what will be do with the people who have bad luck with their investments? Let them die on the street and say I told you so? What about the people who are retiring last year and this year? What would happen to them? We would still be caring for the people, it's just that they would not have paid in. That wouldn't work at all.

Social security was started because people's own savings weren't stable enough to support them. Many people worked until they died, or lived in abject poverty, or lived with their families (who had to pay for them.)

[Curt J]

Yes, and that is something President Bush attempted to do, in a very limited way, for younger taxpayers. His defeated proposal would have allowed young taxpayers to invest 2% of the money normally sent to SSI into a retirement account of their choice, with the monies to be inheritable.
Nasty Peelousy made the loudest stink, with her never ending whine of "How are we going to pay for it" bit and the House went along with it. Funny, that the taxpayers were going to pay for it out of their own earnings, but Peelousy, the Senate and the Media never seemed to understand that part of the proposal.
Then again, Peelousy has used the same ploy for every expenditure cutting proposal that ever came out of the Bush White House. Does it take a super genius to figure out that cutting or reducing a bloated program doesn't cost, but conversely saves, or am I that hopelessly naive?

[Stephen]

no but it should be managed differently

[flower]

Social Security is not an investment fund like a 401K which you have through your job, although they have $250 billion invested in government bonds.

If you are a disabled child or an adult of any age you can have Social Security and Medicare. If you take full retirement the age is 66 or partial at age 62 or earn more credits and take it at 70

If you die at any age and you have a spouse or children, they can get survivor benefits from social security. that is for all minor children and all spouses of over 10 years of marriage

If you die with no spouse or children your benefits stay in the fund.

The small amount that Social Security takes out is not enough for an investment and if you are unemployed for several years you would need your money. If it is tied up an an investment fund that penalizes you before you turn 59 1/2 like an IRA, it does not help you.

You are not allowing for periods of unemployment, disability, family emergencies.

Again, the amount you contribute to Social Security is paltry compared to the benefits received each month. But mainly, these contributions are also matched by your employer and probably would not be if you privatized Social Security. Also, the current contributions are paying for people who are currently getting benefits, so how would they be paid?