> Let us manage our own retirements.
We already know from pre-social security times that approach doesn't work; most people end up destitute.
We already know from pre-social security times that approach doesn't work; most people end up destitute.
Perhaps a mandatory 401k everyone must have, contribute to and refrain from using until age 65 would be the best of both worlds?
The same goes for salaries. There's nothing to stop them from offering them and enforcing slavery.
Except, you know, the people that would be affected.
Society needs to find some way to make promises of future money in exchange for present goods and services enforceable. If only there was some mechanism for that...
There are some 401K plans (not many) that allow you to have index funds as your core which is definitely good. But not sure how to handle the market crash problem.
I didn't say you were, I merely pointed out that we already know people can't in general handle their own retirements.
Social security is a pension.
> To which a 401k or IRA is infinitely preferable.
I dunno, the people who have had 401k's wiped out in various economic collapses might disagree on whether such plans are "infinitely preferable" to defined-benefit pensions.
> But SS has the same problem as pensions: there's nothing to stop future politicians from eliminating it at any time to free up some headroom in the budget.
Well, except voters, which have stopped politicians on several occasions who wanted to make much smaller changes -- which would not even affect current beneficiaries -- to Social Security than eliminating it.
> Perhaps a mandatory 401k everyone must have, contribute to and refrain from using until age 65 would be the best of both worlds?
Well, certainly, it would be one of the best (of the very many!) public subsidies the financial services industry has received. Not sure it would be good for anything beyond that, though.