Should Social Security Be Made Voluntary?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I am sure there are many people who would opt out of the system and invest that money or spend it on something else and worry about retirement income when the time comes.


And if your answer is no as MINE IS why should health insurance be voluntary?


You are more likely to need a doctor at some point in your life than to retire.


I have seen folks on this board arguing health insurance mandates are an infringement on their liberty... If health insurance mandates are an infringement on their liberty than withholding part of your wages for retirement insurance certainly is.


The whole idea of making sure everybody is insured is to lower the costs for everybody because the pool of the insured will have a positive balance of healthy people to those who need care. If you allow folks to buy insurance (after) they become sick that will raise the cost of everybody else who was paying for their insurance when they were healthy..

[madrchsod]

1. no

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. "To Each According To His Ability... To Each According To His Needs"

I know that's Marx but I believe society should provide a floor through which no individual should fall ...If you're smarter, better looking, stronger, more athletic than me and you can parlay those skills into making a billions of dollars I don't begrudge you as long as you made your money honestly and are paying your fair share of taxes...

[dysfunctional press]

22. FROM each according to his ability...to each according to his needs.

nt

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Marx adapted that expression

Maybe this week the right word is plagerized! Suprising to many Christians and Marxists alike is the fact that From each...to each... is right out of the Book of Acts in the New Testament. I often read the verses to christianists of both parties and let them lambast the Marxism, as they always do, then I tell them where the quote comes from and they get the vapors.
kjv: 'Neither said any of them that any of the things which he possesed was his own, but they had all thinkgs in common,Neither ws there any among them that lacked, and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

[DaLittle Kitty]

41. NOOOO BECAUSE ITS FINANCILA PREMISE IS PREDICATED ON FULL PARTICIPATION...Risk Mgt!

Social Security is NOT just retirement benefits it is disability... It used to have a provision whereby someone who lost a prime ary breadwinner prematurely could receive funding for college... A program without which this writer would NEVER have attended college... now having earned because of that not only a bachelors degree but two masters degrees as well...

[MaineDem]

3. No

Look at how many companies offer 401K plans and people don't get into them. I would tell my new (mostly young) employees that they were the easiest way to save for retirement. But they never thought about retirement and wouldn't invest.

The same thing would happen to Social Security. And those who would suffer would be those who are retired now if the system suddenly dried up on the "paying into the system" side.

I also agree with you that health insurance should cover everyone. I hate to use the word "mandatory" but I guess that's what it is.

[Cosmocat]

7. SS definitely not ... Health insurance ideally not ...

SS, NO WAY should it be voluntary ... What the bucketheads on the right can't comprehend is the point made here ... MOST people would opt out, especially those with low earnings who would not have the capacity/discipline to save for retirement on their own - leaving MASSIVE amounts of people in retirement with ZERO retirement savings, and which would DEMAND government support to avert a serious negative societal impact ...

Health insurance ... ME, I prefer a univeral system ... Cut out profitmakers and the cost would drop massively ... Everyone has it and be done with it - with the option for those who have the means to develop a better coverage if they so choose ...

BUT ... You CAN get by, at least in your earlier years, without health insurance coverage if you are reasonably healthy ... I was 30 or so before I finally got a job that had it ...

[enid602]

11. aint that the truth

"Look at how many companies offer 401K plans and people don't get into them." I've never been able to understand that.

[Obamanaut]

4. Yes.

The 'matching funds' that the employer contributes is computed into the cost of hiring the employee. Why not give that to the employee as well as the amount withheld and the employee can fund via investments his/her own retirement.

Reduces number of federal employees, reduces federal budget.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Yes

I am self employed and struggling... Should I be able to not spend the 13% or so I pay in FICA taxes and use it on day to day expenses?

And if I become permanenently disabled or retire did I forfeit my rights to receive assistance from the government?

[Armstead]

5. Apples and Oranges

If the question were: Should Medicare be made voluntary, my answer would be no.

If the question were:Should private investment accounts be voluntary, my answer would be yes.

In terms of your question, since neither Obama nor Hillary are proposing a truly universal single payer system, health insurance should be voluntary.

Obama is politically smart enough to recognize that options are the only way to get enough political support to take a step towards increased access to affordable coverage.

Mandates will die a sure death in Congress and in public opinion, unless it were part of a truly universal public insurance program that would be the equivalent of Medicare or Social Security.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. How Is It Apples And Oranges?

I am a small business owner; a very small business owner... The government is currently (forcing) me to pay thirteen percent or so of my wages on Social Security Insurance... I could get a much better rate of return on other instruments...

Why should the government force me to insure myself against old age and not against being sick?

Is it not likely I will get sick before I get old?

[Armstead]

17. Again it's apples and oranges

The advantage of Social Security over private investment is that SS is a guaranteed return. Unless there is a cosmic catastrophie, you are guaranteed payback on your SS because it is backed by the government and universally funded.

The comparison to forcing people to buy health insurance in the marketplace is not the same. It is too baroque and impure to justify being made mandatory.

Therefore, mandates take the worst of both the "free market" and the "public healthcare" models, and make them into a politically unpalatable stew.

Obama at least recognizes that mandates are a poison pill, and that the only way to move towards real reform is to make it passable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Either The Government Is Forcing Me To Insure Myself Or It Isn't

If I choose not to insure myself against sickness or injury why should I be compelled to insure myself against old age?

Under Clinton's plan you can buy into Medicare so the argument that the insurance you would be compelled to buy is too "baroque and impure to justify being made mandatory" does not carry the day...

Either we insure everybody or we don't, "From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs."

[rodeodance]

37. since SS in mandates you are Already "to insure myself against old age?"

[OHdem10]

9. For anyone who observes the House and Senate a bit more

than casually---we know the GOP mantra is NO MANDATES. In McCAIN"s
speeches on the stump, he goes after Mandates for Health Insurance.
Even Boehner, (House GOP leader) does the No Health Insurance Mandates.

The GOP know very clearly as long as there are no mandates there
will never be universal health care insurance. The GOP have the
art of framing mastered. They do not sound like ogres --they just
do not want mandates. If they said no universal health insurance
this would be a killer. They know they can stop Health Care Coverage
by saying mandates are against their principles.

Point 2: The truth is unless everyone participates you cannot reach
universal healthcare. Any serious insurance company knows and understands
this. Everyone participatin g is what brings the costs down. This
is the principle upon which Insurance was founded. The more participants
the lower the cost.

These are the reasons I support Hillary. Either Barak understands
this or he does not. If he does, his goals are different than
Progressives or if he does not--is he ready to be President. It
may be too late and we will have elected another Center Right
Government.

This is not to flame but people had better start using their heads.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. This Is What I Don't Get

Under Obama's plan if you are uninsured and get sick the insurance companies will be compelled to insure you and then you will have to pay a fine... What if you get in a car accident and suffer a brain injury and the costs for hospitalization, surgery, physicians, and rehabilitations costs hundreds of thousands of dollars... Are you going to be forced to pay a six figure fine?

Forcing an insurance company to insure you after you become sick makes as much sense as forcing an insurance company to insure you after you had an accident...The whole insurance industry is predicated on having good drivers and healthy people to offset the costs of bad drivers and sick people...Forcing insurance companies to insure you (after) you get sick or have an accident stands the whole idea of insurance on its head...

[terrya]

10. Absolutely not.

Under no circumstances. Period.

[Yossariant]

12. The only way to achieve universal health care is to require universal health care and

that's called a mandate.

[rodeodance]

38. YES

[enid602]

13. unmandated

"You are more likely to need a doctor at some point in your life than to retire." Well, with the unmandated universal health care (an oxymoron) that's been proposed, maybe we can get unmandated universal social security as well; kill two birds with one stone.

[kaiden]

14. no.

[harun]

15. Social Security is run by the GOVT, Insurance is NOT WTF !!!!!

HUGE difference because one wants to milk all the profits it can out of you, and they are obligated to their share holders to do that. The GOVT is elected by you and is (at least in theory) suppose to represent your interests. At least you have a shot at kicking them out of office. Good luck kicking the CEO's of the for profit health insurers out of their positions when they decide they don't want to pay your $300,000 medical bill on a technicality. Then even if they are kicked out of their positions it isn't like you have any choice in the next CEO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. That's A Red Herring

You can buy into Medicare under Hillary's plan...

[Armstead]

19. Why doesn't your same argument work against that?

If Medicare is opened up as a competitor in "the marketplace" it may not attract sufficient numbers of participants to avoid a financial disaster, or at least push costs up.

So why not make Medicare universal instead of this convoluted maze of "options" if you are concderned about the size and nature of the risk pool?

My response would be to ultimately push to make Medicare a universal health plan, and stop trying to placate the insurance industry.

That is the only way that mandates would make sense.

Since both Obama and Hillary are reluctant to fight the battle on that principle, then Obama's approach is at least a step in the right direction without the poison pill of mandates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Because You Are Letting The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good

There are real impediments to "Medicare For Everyone"... Some folks like their current plan better than Medicare and it would cost billions and billions to buy out the private health insurance companies... You just can't expropriate them, obviously....Have you ever read House Resolution 676? There's not enough money in the world to buy out the United Healh Cares, the Blue Cross/Blue Shields, the Kaiser Permanentes... We need to pick up the ball where we find it...

I like Hillary's plan...Everybody will be insured... If you don't like the private health care plans you can buy into Medicare...If you can't afford it the government will help you pay for it... The red herring about garnishing wages, to me, is right wing talking points...Obviously if you can't afford health care, you can't afford health care...Those that have little will pay little...Those that have much will pay much... And those that have nothing will pay nothing...

A just society doesn't turn away the sick because they are broke...

I'm not a Marxist or even a socialist but I see what it means to be a liberal turned on its head on this board in the name of advancing a certain candidate's agenda...

I can not be bought...I can not be mesmerized...I can not be swayed... I know what is liberal and what isn't...

[Armstead]

27. Give some of us e a little credit please

The Perfect as the enemy of the good can also be applied to the idea of mandates versus optional care.

On a more general level, you make valid points.

But you are making misguided and unfair claims when you use words like "mesmerized" or suggest that everyone who prefers Obama is turning around definitions of liberal to advance Obama's agenda.

We are able to think for ourselves. And by supporting anyone less of a liberal than Kucinich, we are already making compromises up the wazoo.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Here's My Problem With The Obama Plan

Under his plan insurance companies are forced to insure folks regardless of pre-existing conditions...If an uninsured person shows up in the emergency room with a serious brain injury where's the incentive for a insurance company to insure him? That's akin to me going out and buying collision insurance (after) I hit a tree like my neigbor did New Years Day morning 2007...

Why do you think that provision can pass Congress but mandates can't?

Having a ninety year old mom I am very familiar with Medicare...It is a good program but has it limits...I'm not sure many folks will leave their private program for it; all things being equal...

I want everybody to have health insurance regardless of their ability to pay... That's part of the floor or safety net that society should not let us fall through...

[high density]

20. I'd like to do that with my social security money but I don't think it's a good idea for everybody

People that spend it all are screwed, and we end up paying for them anyway. That's not good. I suspect I could get a better return on that money if it was under my own control. In addition I'd have the benefit of knowing exactly how much money I had instead of the promise of what's basically an inflation protected bond that matures 35 years from now and provides an unknown return.

With the health insurance plan, the problem with Clinton's proposal is that she's telling everybody they need to give money to one of these private insurance companies. Putting Medicare in the mix now just puts the government at competition with the private suppliers, which is totally crazy and probably not going to pass congress. Supporters of her plan have brought up that we have mandated car insurance coverage, but that's different. We mandate car insurance so that when a driver has an accident on the road, the innocent parties that are involved in the crash are not swamped with spending money to fix a car caused by a problem they didn't create. There's no sort of thing like that with health insurance, it covers the body (well parts of it at least) of the person who's paying for it and possibly their family. The benefits of it don't radiate out and protect other people.

We need steps in health insurance toward a single payer system, and I think Obama's is the most politically viable solution right now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Obama's Plan Creates A Larger Problem, IMHO

By compelling health insurance companies to insure you (after) you get ill or injured you are creating a disincentive to buy insurance...What's to motivate a person who knows he can get insurance after he gets sick to buy insurance before getting sick? A rational person might very well wait...He can save tens and tens and tens of thousands of precious dollars...

Oh, under the Obama plan they can be fined...If someone has an accident and suffers a brain injury that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to cure will they be served with a six figure fine for treatment?

[high density]

34. There's no magic solution given the politics involved.

The bottom line is that people do need to have some sort of personal responsibility until we get a single payer system. I consider myself to be a rational person and that's why I purchase health insurance. I don't want to go bankrupt because of something out of my control and the catastrophic coverage is the main reason why I have it. I definitely do not yet get my "monies worth" out of it by any stretch of the imagination. I guess I should consider that to be a good thing. Last year between my employer and I, we spent nearly five grand in premiums but I had claims worth maybe $400 for a couple of visits and blood work. So on a short term level it does look irrational, but on a long term unknown basis there's a good chance of this equation becoming tilted in the other direction. This assumes of course that I can afford health insurance when I'm in my 60s! Maybe we'll have something better by then, I hope.

[democrattotheend]

47. So it's better to allow companies to exclude those with preexisting conditions?

That's one of the big problems with insurance today. People lose their jobs and can't afford COBRA, and then they can't get their own coverage because of preexisting conditions. I saw a story on the news last night about how a lot of insurance companies are increasingly dropping people from their coverage because they have conditions that the companies don't want to cover.

As for the fines if people show up at the emergency room without insurance, that's not new. People who show up at the emergency room now have to be treated, but they get a bill for it. It's not ideal, but it's not a new policy.

[GDavis]

23. To be consistent with this libertarian view, BO should make car & homeowener insurance voluntary

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Homeowner's Insurance Is "Voluntary" If You Don't Want A Mortgage

The mortgage companies are going to make sure their assets are protected...

My argument for car insurance is it's an other directed act... Even in the liberterian view you are responsible for the harm you do to others... You should have insurance or prove you have the ability to compensate someone you might injure while driving...

[rasputin1952]

25. No...At one point, the British tried this and it fell flat...

people invested, they lost, and the govt bailed them out anyway.

Inevitably, people would make incredibly bad decisions, lose all they had invested, (if they invested at all), and wind up being destitute...we would then fit them into the system so they would not starve to death. FWIW...all of those who are now collecting a payment from SS, particularly the wealthy, and calling for "privatization" of "Voluntary Inclusion", are NOT sending their checks back to the Treasury. They are getting a pretty good return on their money for what they put in, and while they call for it for others, they are beyond the scope of the implications. If those who receive SS checks, send them back, i might find their arguments somewhat feasible.

Here is how to fix SS...first off, DO NOT spend the excess taken in each year.

Second...once # 1 is dealt with, we can discuss other measures. Nothing can be done until the raiding of the SS fund is stopped.

[moose65]

31. I agree!

Why is it that politicians never discuss that option? As far as I remember, Social Security is still running a surplus and will do that for a few more years. That money should be off limits to the government, no matter WHO is running the show. I am a member of the state retirement system in NC, and that money is completely separate from the general fund of the state. It would be a disaster if the state was allowed to dip into that pot of money. NC already raids the Highway Trust Fund (from gas taxes) for something like 170 million dollars a year. If money is made available to politicians of ANY persuasion, they will spend it!

[moose65]

33. As far as the OP goes..

No, I don't think SS should be made voluntary. For one thing, it's hard to convince a 20-year-old that he or she needs to invest part of their earnings for retirement. For another, if we suddenly took millions of people out of the system, it would collapse and be unable to pay the benefits to our current retirees, and we would be back to the situation that created SS in the first place: a large class of destitute senior citizens. We certainly have a short memory in this country, don't we? That being said, I certainly think that we should discuss the fact that the self-employed are taxed double for SS; there should be some sort of compromise we could come to on that issue. And, I think the earnings cap needs to be raised, as well.

[Vinca]

29. No, but it's different from the current health INSURANCE schemes

that are billed as "universal." When you're born, you're issued a social security number that follows you through your life. Whenever you're employed, you must present the number and funds are deducted from you pay and transferred to the social security system and when you reach a certain age you get paid back. For health CARE to be universal, it needs to operate on the same principal. In fact, it could use the same number, issued at birth, following you through your life. When you work, money would be deducted from your paycheck and it would go to the health CARE system. However, everyone would have a number and everyone would be covered equally, whether they contributed $10 a week or $100 a week or 0 a week. Hospitals, doctors, etc. would still be private, but would bill one entity: the Health Care Administration. The HCA would negotiate prices the same way insurance companies do, but would only be a payment mechanism, not "socialized medicine." Under the plans proposed by both Clinton and Obama, we're still held hostage to the insurance companies. Neither has explained how they're going to force the insurance companies to forgo massive profits in order to cover everyone at an affordable price. In fact, if the health insurance companies do such a thing they're violating their fiduciary responsibilities to their investors. In short, health CARE should be universal and mandatory and AUTOMATIC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. The Way I Understand It You Can Buy Into Medicare Under Hillary's Plan

That means you are not being compelled to fund private insurors...

[Vinca]

35. But Medicare - unless it's drastically changed - only covers

a fraction of medical expenses. Most seniors must buy additional insurance. I know one individual (now dead) who was on Medicare and was on the hook for $900 total a month between the Medicare premium and the supplemental insurance premium (excluding the drug policy). That was a couple of years ago, so it would probably be more than $1,000 now. Opting for Medicare as it exists today isn't the answer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Yeah

But at least Medicare provides care... It's better than no care at all...It certainly has its limits...

[Rosemary2205]

42. Medicare only provides ACCESS if you can afford it

what Hillary does not seem to understand is that even when the poor and lower middle class are GIVEN medicare (as in they do not pay the premiums for part A, B and D), they still have to pay the part of the medical care Medicare does not pay. This is SUBSTANTIAL and is a barrier to actually recieving medical care for MANY seniors -- which is why so many state cooked up Medicare HMOs - which lower costs to the recipient but the restrictions are extraordinary. With a regular HMO you have some recourse if they tell you to kiss off. With a Medicare HMO the appeal process is not worth talking about.

Add to that you are going to get A LOT of employers who dump their own coverage offerings to require their employees to buy into Medicare. Even my coverage is BETTER and more cost effective than Medicare overall. When I had the chance to spend my own money to buy into expensive coverage that will cover nearly all my medical needs (and I am disabled so I have MANY medical needs) then I grabbed at it because it was better, more flexible and financially cheaper on me to pay the huge premiums than it was to pay all the stuff medicare would not cover -- and of course the rules change at the drop of a dime so you never know what medicare will pay.

Now I have no problem in theory expanding Medicare to more people. But Medicare has an enormous amount of financial problems already. States are DROWNING under their Medicare obligations as it is because the Feds have so underfunded it. Hillary is talking about forcably taking more of people's money from them. Not a chance in hell she's going to win on a platform like that. She'd fair much better if she made buying into her healthcare plan so wonderful that almost no one would want to pass it up.

[rasputin1952]

36. One of the biggest "complaints" about UHC, is that ...

"one could not get the care they 'wanted'"...but the reality is, often under PHC, they cannot get the medical care they need. The problem arises when someone in a cubicle, (the private side of the "dreaded bureaucrat"), makes a decision based on a financial drive, that denies a person of life saving treatment. An individual has "insurance", but because some nameless person beholding to the "bottom line" says no, a person dies. I see it every day, people who get sick and can't get treated because someone in an obscure office thinks the procedure is "unnecessary". If they do not have the means to deal with the problem, they suffer the consequences.

one other thing...all of these people who say they "don't want to pay for someone else's care", should be forced off the rolls of PHC...after all, the people in the pool are paying for their health care, just as they are paying for others. Unless they can pay, out of pocket, for all they receive, they need to shut up and sit down...if for nothing else, than to just see how they are the beneficiaries of others that have put into a system they think is theirs alone to use. In that respect, there is no difference at all in who pays, either through taxes or premiums, they are receiving health care at severely reduced cost to themselves.

[Vinca]

39. I'm particularly annoyed when the people who say they

"don't want to pay for someone else's care" fail to make mention of paying huge profits to private insurance companies. As much as 75% of what is paid in premiums goes to fire up the corporate jets. I don't know if anyone has ever compared, in dollars, corporate profits vs. the cost of covering the uninsured. It would probably be eye opening.

[rasputin1952]

53. It is not uncommon for many an insurance company to pay

for exorbitant prices for executive furniture, while the ill lie on cold gurney's waiting fo rhours to be seen...I have been to Omaha...the insurance capital of the world, and in some insurance industry buildings, the electric bill to illuminate paintings on the wall would pay for a weeks worth of dialysis.

It is appalling.

[Straight Shooter]

44. The idea is not just to lower the costs; it is also to encourage preventive health care.

A lot of people ignore little signs and symptoms because, even though they may be worried, they feel like they "can't afford to see the doctor" and hope the problem will go away. Then by the time they are forced by their condition to see a physician, the problem is much, much worse, and far more expensive to treat.

If we could at least have preventive health care (wellness) checkups, that would be wonderful.

[democrattotheend]

46. Plans that cover routine care without high deductibles are expensive

The cheapest health insurance plans are the ones with high deductibles, where you have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor until you reach a limit, often as high as $1,000. Unless Clinton's plan mandates that people buy more expensive plans with low deductibles, it wouldn't do a lot to encourage people to seek preventative care.

[Straight Shooter]

48. I didn't communicate my issue very well.

I merely meant to state that simply offering very low or no-cost preventive health care would result, in my opinion, in significant cost reduction. Maybe both candidates need to look at working from the bottom of health care costs up, instead of from the top down.

Being self-employed, I feel like I'm going to get shafted by the time any kind of plan gets worked out anyway.

[democrattotheend]

45. I'm actually torn on that

If money being paid into Social Security was actually being saved for my retirement, I'd have no problem with it. But the way Congress is spending the money on other things like bombs in Iraq instead of saving the money for the time when more people are receiving it than paying in makes me kind of resentful of the money taken out of my paycheck.

A lot of people on this forum and even some mainstream Democrats have said that we don't need to do anything about Social Security because it'll be solvent for another 40 years. I'm 23, so if the system is so solid that it'll be fine for another 40 years, then I can't count on it being there when I retire. So part of me would like to have some of the money to save on my own. I'd rather Congress act to fix the system, by raising the cap on FICA taxes and putting extra money from Social Security taxes in a lockbox the way Gore proposed in 2000, but if they are not going to do that, then I can't count on Social Security and have to save privately anyway, so part of me wishes I could opt out of Social Security and put the money in a CD or in my 401(k) (although I'm a little wary of the stock market these days).

In terms of the health care debate, I don't think it's the same thing, because Social Security is a tax paid to support a government program, while Clinton's healthcare proposal mandates that people buy insurance from private companies. I'd be more comfortable with a mandate if buying into Medicare was an option. Clinton's healthcare plan is more comparable to a plan that mandates that people save for retirement by opening up an account with a for-profit bank or stockbroker.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. If my contributions are going to a private company that can turn around and deny me benefits

Then yeah.

Next.

[ileus]

50. Our company opted out.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. A problem with your thesis:

If *everyone* is insured, that includes people with conditions that preclude them from insurance right now. You are making a dubious assumption about the health of the majority of uninsured people. They're not all well-paid 20 something deadbeats.

[jmg257]

52. Yes. It is a good thing to take responsibility for your own needs. YOU know best what they are.

[WinkyDink]

55. What about the term "SOCIAL" do you not get?

[WinkyDink]

54. SS isn't "retirement insurance". It is what it says, and goes also to widows, minor orphans, and the

disabled, as well as citizens of a certain age.

MOREOVER, HRC's plan is NOT a government-funded plan to insure us; it is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT, INSURANCE-COMPANY PLAN.

That is, Social Security is a publicly-funded safety-net for all citizens, overseen by the non-profit Federal Government.

HRC's plan is a publicly-funded TRANSFERENCE of citizens' money to PRIVATE COMPANIES, with attendant profit-margins and share-holder dividends, with NO Federal Government over-seeing for price controls, company-decision controls (e.g., who can be refused a particular treatment; physician choice; etc.), or quality controls.

Boiled down, it's the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.

[Mike03]

56. One question I've had is...

Those who make their income from sources other than work don't pay SS, and I don't understand why. Speaking generally, I would think that some people in this category might WANT to pay into SS to secure their own futures. I say this because investment is never a sure thing, and fortunes can be lost in the blink of an eye; at that point, we all become humble, and SS becomes a sacrament.

[WinkyDink]

57. Maybe all the smug Libertarians can DONATE their S.S. funds to a charity.

Or NOT TAKE their home deductions.

ETC.