I just saw a study saying SS is a bad deal for 80% of the people. Meaning, i believe, they put in more than they get out. I find it hard to believe it would be a money loser for 80% of the people if you got to invest your money in a lifecycle fund or even the S&P 500 over your 40 some year career. Then again, that's what dems do, scare people.It's the whole mentality behind it that galls me. We really don't need the government acting like our Big Mommy and Daddy to save us from ourselves economically. What kind of person thinks it's virtuous to tell people that they're worthless, stupid and need the government to take care of them? Who can sleep at night supporting a system that creates dependency on the government amongst people who, having worked for decades had more than enough opportunity to ween themselves off the government's teat? How is that compatible with any definition of freedom?I certainly could do very well without their taking over 12% of my income (the part I pay in and the part my employer pays in for me which would otherwise be income to me, as far as employers are concerned it is part of their employee costs!) into a system that is clearly not going to be there for me in 40 years when I qualify for it. Either I'll have saved so much outside of it that I'll be deemed "rich" and will be denied it that way or it'll collapse into a pile of rubble like all Ponzi schemes and I still won't get it. Really, not seeing a single reason to support this program.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra