> Social Security replaced with an index

Yes please!

I learned just how bad of a deal Social Security is when an employer (a bootstrapped startup) offered a predatory 401k plan. It was free for my employer to setup but the employees were stuck with extremely high fees. It was so bad that John Oliver made an episode[0] about it!

Yet, even for the worst 401K plan in America, the projected retirement returns were 1600% of the Social Security returns. Even America's worst 401K would be better for the average consumer than the federal debacle

Uncle Sam should sunset SSI and allow citizens to select from and move freely between a number of accredited funds.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvZSpET11ZY

▲

altcognito 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you aware that SSI is an insurance (or lifetime annuity) not an investment?

SSI covers disability, and supplements income no matter what happens. Disability? You're covered. Live to 105? You're covered. Market dips 50% in a period you have a lot of expenses? Your benefits are unaffected.

Tax advantaged 401k is already the vehicle of choice for retirement funds.

▲

Ajedi32 4 hours ago | parent [-]

1600% higher returns can cover a lot of eventualities.

▲

compsciphd 3 hours ago | parent [-]

it doesn't cover you getting disabled so you can't work anymore at the age of 30 after working 8 years.

1600% higher return is great when you work from yours 20s to your 50s/60s and can essentially self insure yourself at that point with it, but as the person you are responding to you is (I believe) trying to say, that's not everyone.

	▲	Ajedi32 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair, but given that we're talking about a hypothetical government program, "index-based retirement fund" doesn't imply you're the only one contributing to said fund.

▲

trunkiedozer 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Absolutely!