Social Security is an insurance program because, even if you paid in, you may not get anything if you get hit by a bus before you are old enough to collect. How much you collect depends on how long you live past, I think it is, age 65 or 70 when you can start getting payments.
It is a mandatory insurance program for all working people. It is government spending but so is spending for roads, bridges, cops, clean water, etc. What is the point? I've asked you before, how much government spending do you want to get rid of?
Since you don't have an amount or a percentage of reduction in government spending that you want to see, what programs or functions do you want the government to hand over to for-profit industry?
No one is failing to count Social Security which is much of the problem. Politicians count on Social Security because it is so successful and has such a big pot. If they stopped counting it as part of the general slush fund (which is where this argument started) that would be a GOOD THING.
Leave Social Security to roll on by itself by taking off the income cap and stop addressing it as part of the general bank account. THAT WAS THE MAIN POINT OF THE WEBSITE in regards to the cost of the military.
The risk of underperforming what specific index over what period of time? Certainly, the given rate is going to underperform something (shorting the net for instance or plunging into commodities in the last few years) but the risk is zero. There is no need to play casino with Social Security. There is only the need (I think I've said this ten times) to simply REMOVE THE INCOME CAP ON CONTRIBUTIONS.
Econ 101: energy prices, fees, reduction in services, etc. all ACT AS A TAX ON PEOPLE.
They don't have to be labled as a tax to affect human behavior in exactly the same way as those things labeled taxes. Refer to freshman Econ. |
