[Sandtrap328]

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

[Walter123]

If we only knew then what we know now.

[folkh]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

At 25 young and dumb I would of opted out at 61 glad i didn't have the choice!!!

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

I think you reveal your biased motivation by saying "there would be absolutely no government assistance".

My grandfather never had social security and was poor all of his life with a family of 7. He never owned a house or car. In his retirement he received state aid. His main occupation during his working years was "coal mining".
Either the state or federal government must step in with some minimum safety net. If you change your opening post you might get more replies. As it stands you have stacked the deck in favor of the answer you're looking for.

[REDCART]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Yes, we all paid into Social Security...

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices...

Your question suggests that SS is nothing more than a "retirement" program, and that you've overlooked the valuable disability and survivor benefits that your FICA taxes also paid for.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

Actually, this question makes no sense.

When I, and assume most others were working, there were very few alternatives...you selected your employer and one of the main factors was retirement.

Annuities and the like were new on the landscape and not discussed much.

Not sure of you intent in asking this question, because I was always told my social security was a guaranty by the government, but I should save as much as possible to add to that plus my employers retirement plan. Today, those retirement plans are history for the most part and it is now, for those younger folks....you do not have a retirement in most cases, unless with the government (state or federal), and social security will never do it, so you better begin to invest and start young.

To respond directly, I can't answer it...it was a different time and age, and today's investment opportunities just did not exist.

I would really like to know the reason for the question actually. Recently there appears to be a subtle message from some that I should feel guilty for collecting SS. As I said to the other thread, I suppose posting with the same motivation as usual, I feel not one iota of guilt.

PS...DIdnt you often times mention you worked for the government so you DID NOY pay into SS. You paid, I think a percentage into the federal retirement fund. Sorry if I am wrong..my memory is shot..you know these old social security collectors.

[ureout]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Yes, we all paid into Social Security for our working careers and, naturally, the Social Security general fund was "raided" to pay for other things. That is not the issue of this post.

I would like to know opinions on IF Social Security had been an opt-in program, who would have decided NOT to opt-in and to save/invest for their own retirement. At retirement age, if you had NOT opted-in, there would be absolutely no government assistance even if you had not made good saving/investment choices.

Which would you have taken - advised your children and grandchildren to have taken?

did you buy life insurance when you were young???? if yes, why???? you could have put that yearly premium away and had a bundle of $$$$ now....same premise

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by ureout

did you buy life insurance when you were young???? if yes, why???? you could have put that yearly premium away and had a bundle of $$$$ now....same premise

Uh I think you buy life insurance in case you drop dead tomorrow or in 10 years. You don't know when you'll need it so it really isn't something you can save for over the years.

[billethkid]

if opting out was indeed a choice we as a nation would be confronted with millions who would have opted out...only to use the money. Then when between the rock and the hard place years hit they would be lined up looking for support/supplement/give away.

The same issue exists with younger people who do in fact have the option to buy insurance and didn't or don't......until they need support/supplement/hand out.

Opting out should only be when proof of the alternate investment is provided and maintained. The Treasury could do that like they do everything else....right?

[JP]

I think the average American doesn't understand investing enough to "opt out" and would end up with ZERO $ at retirement age and would cosequently further burden our over burdened society. I have never liked paying in to social security but as it stands, I am glad I did and everyone has to.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by JP

I think the average American doesn't understand investing enough to "opt out" and would end up with ZERO $ at retirement age and would cosequently further burden our over burdened society. I have never liked paying in to social security but as it stands, I am glad I did and everyone has to.

except for some of the illegals and select other groups!

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I think you reveal your biased motivation by saying "there would be absolutely no government assistance"...

I didn't read bias into that at all. It sounded to me like he was just being clear about the hypothetical situation he was describing.

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by JP

I think the average American doesn't understand investing enough to "opt out" and would end up with ZERO $ at retirement age and would cosequently further burden our over burdened society. I have never liked paying in to social security but as it stands, I am glad I did and everyone has to.

Totally agree. Since I don't get the AARP magazine anymore, I can't really state percentage wise, how many Americans have saved less than 25K for retirement. There would be a glut of people who would be living in poverty conditions if they had the option to opt out..

Many people don't have the wherewithal to start saving in their twenties, thinking they have plenty of time. When they have reached 50 or so, it's too late.

Giving people the option to opt out would generate a whole new generation of broke retirees. Some people now have to work until they drop dead.

Sorry I don't agree that anyone should opt out of SS.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

I don't think that you should be able to opt out but your SS money should be yours and go into a 401k type program that you can not touch until age 62. The investment choices should be controlled to some extent. You would end up with a lot more than what you are getting now!

[784caroline]

Do you really think the average person (especially 20 - 40 years olds) knows how to invest in a 401K program?

I would be in favor of all americans continue paying into Social Security, but rather than giving them the option of investng in a 401K type program, have them invest in a government run TSP program which has been Extremely succesful for more than 30 years and provides for a number of investment options.

Even with the TSP, how do you get the 20 year old to invest in stocks when they have NO idea what to do!!!! If it was only in money markets or treasury equavalents, they would never have what they would under Social Security.

Hard to beat Social Secuity for its simpilicity. yet takes all into consideration regardless of investment know how!!