On the one hand, it isn't welfare. You don't get benefits proportional to your current need; you get benefits proportional to the tax you paid. But on the other hand, it gets you less return on your investment than if you just sank the same amount in the stock market, and it doesn't even save you from making retirement-savings decisions, because the tax and the benefits aren't really enough for full retirement. While some kind of middle road between a socialist dictatorship and anarcho-capitalism is generally necessary, this seems to be an unhappy medium. Either extreme (welfare for the retired, or full individual responsibility for saving for one's own retirement) would probably be better.
---
Jordan, quoting Genesis 2:18: "It is not good for man to be alone."
Fred: "in genesis noah also put two of every animal on a boat when he was 600."
Just wait like 10 years until it goes bankrupt and some sort of new system is in place...
---
Well, there is a new accent of n00b language. It's called: Vet LUEser goes Foreign!-MegaSpy22
Those must be the pants of the gods!-Digitalpython
I mean yeah.
It's soer of like the public optionless healthcare bill. Like... why?
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
Sort of*
Posting from my phone is responsible for both typos and the brevity of my commentary on complex issues.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir