Privatized savings does not solve the problem of what to do for an individual who fails to save enough. Thet's why "social security" is called SOCIAL security: it's a socialist program. Each contributes according to ability, each receives according to need.
Privatized savings does not solve the problem of what to do for an individual who fails to save enough. Thet's why "social security" is called SOCIAL security: it's a socialist program. Each contributes according to ability, each receives according to need.
I actually read a right-leaning defense of pensions from the standpoint of inherent human difference once.
The argument was basically this - people vary based upon their ability to save/spend wisely, and this appears to be to a large extent immutable - it's not responsive to financial incentives. Therefore if we establish private tax-free accounts for retirement we're basically rewarding people who don't need a reward - people who would have saved anyway (this has been proven by studies in Denmark) - and punishing those who are naturally financially impaired. Pensions, in contrast, work as a great leveler because asset management is ported over to professionals who know what they are doing, which allows those who are not financially savvy to have an adequate retirement.
That's conflating the goal of forcing people to save for retirement versus providing a social safety net. Plus how is SS socialist? The entire idea is that it's universal, meaning that it is not subject to means testing. I think in a sane system Warren Buffett would get bupkis from SS (and Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, etc.) at the same time that he still has to pay into it.
Privatized savings does not solve the problem of what to do for an individual who fails to save enough. Thet's why "social security" is called SOCIAL security: it's a socialist program. Each contributes according to ability, each receives according to need.
I actually read a right-leaning defense of pensions from the standpoint of inherent human difference once.
The argument was basically this - people vary based upon their ability to save/spend wisely, and this appears to be to a large extent immutable - it's not responsive to financial incentives. Therefore if we establish private tax-free accounts for retirement we're basically rewarding people who don't need a reward - people who would have saved anyway (this has been proven by studies in Denmark) - and punishing those who are naturally financially impaired. Pensions, in contrast, work as a great leveler because asset management is ported over to professionals who know what they are doing, which allows those who are not financially savvy to have an adequate retirement.
That's conflating the goal of forcing people to save for retirement versus providing a social safety net. Plus how is SS socialist? The entire idea is that it's universal, meaning that it is not subject to means testing. I think in a sane system Warren Buffett would get bupkis from SS (and Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, etc.) at the same time that he still has to pay into it.
And for the specific scenario Deroy Murdock described how is SS not regressive?