Social Security

>>>/pol/catalog

>>1318235

Stfu.

I'm interested.

Do you seriously believe Social Security will not be in place when you reach retirement age?

>life expectancy at an all time high
>old people have better voter turnouts
>implying the growing number of old people aren't going to protect their income

It will be mostly insolvent by the time the millennials reach retirement.

SS already has a negative ROI, but I see the payments being decreased or remaining the same as they are now, so they won't keep up with inflation by a wide margin.

I also see the age requirements being increased to 70 or above.

You may see a push for an opt out at some point, when it gets so bad that everyone realizes they're getting negative ~30% ROI on the money they paid in

Also government pensions. I'm not entitled to one so I don't give a fuck, but something will give eventually.

>>1318226

It was a scam right from the start:

The government: "Let us hold on to some of your money, we'll take care of it, invest it, then fund your retirement later"

What a joke.

The correct idea would have been to make it mandatory for all citizens to invest 5% of their income into a stock or fund of their choosing, that money is locked into the fund and can't be accessed until age 60. In the event of death the fund is passed on to next of kin, or whoever specified by will, and the age limit continues.

But no they didn't do that. Why? Because the government had a sneaky way to get more tax dollars.

>>1318226
I think it is. Think about how you could grow that money over the next 40 years. Instead we let the the government manage our savings because some of us are to stupid to plan ahead. It's one of the biggest jokes, thats for sure

Also why don't women pay more if they have longer life expectancies?