[exabrial]

I wish i could just opt out of social security and invest the money myself. I'd pay the long term cap gains tax if this was an option, and I'd come out way ahead. The federal government can only mishandle money.

Maybe we need two systems:

1. You may move to be a certified responsible saver. You inherit all risk. But you opt out of the taxes. You must prove retirements assets are being contributed to.

2. Mandatory saving for everyone else (reading other countries, seems like this happens elsewhere). Money is pooled and invested into US companies. Investments must produce at least 8% return annually over 10 year rolling period or something, else corporate assets are forfeited (someone more saavy than I needs to figure that policy out).

[BobbyJo]

Social security was created so that money collected day one could be distributed day one. Allowing people to opt out and invest the money is incompatible with the model as a whole.

It's like asking if you can save today's extra heartbeats for when you're older.

[exabrial]

This is hilarious.

[_DeadFred_]

I had responsible friends whose savings plans were destroyed in market crashes.

The whole point of social security is a safety net. There are plenty of cases where 'responsible savers' have needed that net. What do you propose, a second safety net to cover 'responsible savers' should something happen to them?

[Terr_]

> I wish i could just opt out of social security and invest the money myself.

I'd like to emphasize that SS/OASDI is not an investment program in the first place, it is an insurance program. The two kinds cannot be directly compared, and have very different mechanics and features. You might already have known that, but the misconception is distressingly common in America--which I blame on misinformation from big-bank lobbyists.

> You inherit all risk. But you opt out of the taxes. You must prove retirements assets are being contributed to.

Is inheriting all the risk even possible? Suppose someone signs some dark legal contract in blood, like: "I refuse all public assistance, let me die in a ditch because I shall make my own fate."

What happens if they commit crime (perhaps out of desperation) and are sentenced to time in jail? Now there are three outcomes which all suck differently:

1. The government caves and supports them anyway with taxpayers funding their jail-food and jail-shelter. This distorts the original incentives, and recidivism is going to be a bitch.

2. They are let go, to commit more crimes? Locals won't stand for that.

3. They are indirectly executed by being forcibly exiled to a walled-off isolated place with no food and no shelter, as their families (quite reasonably) cry about the brutality on TV.

Then there's the issue of dependents, and mechanisms for fraud, and both of those are much bigger cans of worms than I want to open in this edit...