Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Too bad Social Security isn't an investment program. It's stupid to try and compare apples and oranges, don't you think?
You make me laugh, Joey. You are handing the people that want to kick you off your Social Security Disability Insurance the hard-heeled boot to do just that.
Tell me - how would you be doing, today, living off just the profit of your hard work in your lifetime, with no Social Security disability to help you?
Your personal retirement fund right now is at least 5-7% of your lifetime income, right? You know - the percentage of income people should save, that you have saved, minus any Social Security percentage you have contributed? You've been completely diligent about saving that, surely, the way you bemoan we all contribute so seniors don't die in poverty (what a terrible societal decision THAT was, huh? How horrid a society are we, do protect our seniors?)
Better plan for being without that SSDI now, as long as you are going to try so hard to elect them and get that accomplished.
|
It's not an investment program? That's good because any investment program with that poor return would be a joke. But then, so is Social Security.
You're playing semantics. Whether it's classified as a "safety net", which I guess some how exonerates the government from giving a good return, or an investment program, is meaningless because in all cases the citizen's money is the money being applied for this purpose. It is the citizen who bears the lack of growth or outright loss. The paying citizen that is - those of us suckers who pay in.
Oh - I am a saver , but I want to do it with less of a headwind.
If Social Security is that great, make it optional.