No. of Recommendations: 3
Two problems: one, we're not about to let 90-year-olds starve to death (at least I hope we're not become that Trumpian yet); and two, how do we pay for people already on social security if some people can opt-out? Either they have to continue to fund current retirees or a massive tax hike will be necessary to fill that void.
We would have to be willing to let them starve if we had an opt-out feature. I'm not saying I support that, I'm just sayin'.
We would have to fund current recipients the same way we funded the original recipients in 1933. Again, I don't support that. But that's the answer to your question.
The 25 yr-old me would have jumped at that opt-out option. The 60 yr-old me realizes that, while I would have been fine without (maybe better?), we would have a lot of 90 yr-olds starving. If they even made it to 90. I realize that Dope1, and you, and me, and everyone here is part of the top few percent because we're here (or the old TMF). Most of the bottom 90% don't frequent investment websites, or know anything about investing.
