I don't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Yes, I mentioned in my previous response that I had simplified because most people would not be able to read two sentences and keep the relevant concepts in mind.
As for your second point, perhaps you know what you're talking about. All I know is, my father passed away this Fall and my mother now receives his Social Security pension. Not too shabby in my book.
Yes, there are exceptions: for widows and widowers, and for orphans in certain circumstances. I didn't want to make a post several times larger to spell out the few exceptions our taskmasters have allowed us.
If your father had a 401K, do you think it would vanish the instant he died?
With a 401k, you get the same amount of money no matter how long you live (so you need to save up enough to live to 105 and if you don't make it, give it to your kids).
This might be true if you convert your 401K into a pile of dollars the day you retire. The difference is an investment will continue to be an investment and earn interest, even after you retire.
The point isn't about making the payouts the same or different; the point is you don't own the "insurance". If you bought real insurance you own it. If you have a 401K you own it. You don't own your SS "insurance."
The article mentions the system invests in "Treasury securities." When they have to be redeemed, where does the money come from? From then-current tax revenue, which means your children will be taxed to pay for your benefits. There is no magical "trust fund"; it is a big pile of IOUs.
If you work for thirty years, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars into a 401K, and you die one month after you retire, how much money does your family get? Okay, now after putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into "Social Security", you die one month after you retire, how much does your family get? The answer to the second question is a big fat zero. See Supreme Court decisions Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis. So you are bamboozled if you even call this stuff "Insurance."
The people arguing that the deficit is more important a problem than Social Security are missing the fact Social Security is the biggest debt the US owes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I mentioned in my previous response that I had simplified because most people would not be able to read two sentences and keep the relevant concepts in mind.
I'm glad to see you are not one of them.
Yes, there are exceptions: for widows and widowers, and for orphans in certain circumstances. I didn't want to make a post several times larger to spell out the few exceptions our taskmasters have allowed us.
If your father had a 401K, do you think it would vanish the instant he died?
The point isn't about making the payouts the same or different; the point is you don't own the "insurance". If you bought real insurance you own it. If you have a 401K you own it. You don't own your SS "insurance."
The people arguing that the deficit is more important a problem than Social Security are missing the fact Social Security is the biggest debt the US owes.