It's (finally) time for reparations. It's time for the US to pay its debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for paying higher taxes to provide healthcare for all, better schools, and free college for lower-income kids.

I worked in development for 10 years and huge cash transfers aren't the way to go. Teach a man to fish and all that.

How about other forms of reparations?

Do you support the principle but not just handing out cash?

NP here. The principle is abhorrent. My parents and grandparents recieved Holocaust reparations from the German government. That was for their suffering. I would not accept reparations for me. I did not suffer anything close to what they went through.

On the other hand, I do believe society has an obligation to assist people who are poor today. Present conditions that keep them in poverty should be fixed. They are entitled to a decent life and opportunities. Cash is okay, but jobs at living wages is better.

Otherwise, we will be saying Oprah deserves "reparations," but a poor white who grew up in poverty deserves nothing.

What if your parents had never been paid? What if Israel wasn't formed? What if extensive systemic antisemitism was still happening today?

Did you know that the US government still pays (this year $5 million) to support Holocaust survivors living in America? And $3.8B in military aid to Israel in 2019.

Even, some slave owners were compensated:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/opinion/when-slaveowners-got-reparations.html


How much has the US ever paid to survivors of slavery and other forms of black oppression?

My mother's family was compensated. Due to the vagaries of history, my father's family was not. That's how it goes. I would not accept money for him.

Military aid to Israel is not reparations. It's a military alliance. Formation of Israel was perhaps reparations, but that benefited actual refugees, and unfortunately created other refugees who are still suffering.

What about Indians? We took 100 per cent of their land. Do we give it back?

What about Chinese railroad builders? They weren't paid very well and faced years of discrimination. Do they get back compensation for what they should have been paid?

What about women for the last 5,000 years? So many were slaves to their husbands. Do today's men owe women payment for our grandfathers beating our grandmothers?


The point is, history is history. The winners and the losers all end up dead. Their joys and sufferings are over. We can't fix what happened to the dead, not even in theory.

We can however make the world better for those who suffer today. That's what we should be talking about.

Thoughts on how to bridge the wealth gap without reparations?

Focus on systemic racism issues that exist today. It's really that simple. It's disgusting to demand anything called "reparations" for something that happened 400 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.

Explain why white people should be able to pass on their wealth from generation to generation but black people can't. AKA protection of white privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there may be a moral basis for reparations. But wouldn’t the economic benefits of race based affirmative action over the last decades have to be taken into account too, to arrive at an appropriate payment amount?

How would you measure that?

If you look at the income and wealth gaps, we haven't made any progress.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp9.pdf
"The historical data also reveal that no progress has been made in reducing income and wealth inequalities between black and white households over the past 70 years"

What happens when you take Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg out?

We've significantly increased income inequality over the past several decades. But that's not the same issue as the wealth inequality between white and black people.

+1. This. The 1% have done so much better over the last few decades. Everybody else, of all colors, have pretty much been treading water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.

Explain why white people should be able to pass on their wealth from generation to generation but black people can't. AKA protection of white privilege.

Everyone should be able to pass on wealth from generation to generation and the only people who pretend to think otherwise are sock puppets and strawmen trying to stoke things up to make this an election issue. No thank you to your divisiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of the merits of your article (which personally I found sophomoric), this is not the time to revisit the issue of reparations. We have one chance to take back our country and we can’t afford to muddy the waters with extremely divisive issues like this. It may make you feel good to atone for your white privilege, but most voters don’t agree.

How so?

And you want to transform our society, but....not now?

Given the long history of oppression, black people are now disproportionately affected by covid-19. Sure seems like the right time...

How so?
Sorry, I’m just not interested debating an issue that is far more complex than I think you realize and an alleged remedy that will never be implemented.

And you want to transform our society, but....not now?
I want remove the malignant narcissistic sociopath in the White House and his fellow traitors in the Senate, the House, and state and local offices. That’s my sole focus right now. I have no problem discussing police reform, since most people agree that changes are needed in that area. But reparations...no.

Given the long history of oppression, black people are now disproportionately affected by covid-19. Sure seems like the right time...
Yes, black people are disproportionally affected by Covid-19, for a variety of reasons. But that has nothing to do with reparations.

[Anonymous]

I think reparations make moral sense, but I have no clue how you’d decide who is qualified.

Descendants of slaves are obvious, but what about a rich black person? Do they get it too and, if so, is it the same amount?

What about a Nigerian immigrant who got here last year, has a great job, but still faces discrimination because she’s black?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.

Explain why white people should be able to pass on their wealth from generation to generation but black people can't. AKA protection of white privilege.

The whole Sovereign Wealth Fund idea is stupid. Social Security is one of the mainstays of the Black community, and there's no way some new allocation of "shares" is going to provide anywhere near the same support for Black disabled or retired people. Plus, we can't afford the transitions costs of dumping Social Security for this sovereign wealth fund. It's not even clear how this thing gets funded "without raising taxes", like it's some notional accounts system that is worthless IRL.

Best to ignore this poster. I'm not a fan of cash reparations either, although I'd absolutely be for improving the Social Security system, improving public education, and national healthcare.

[Anonymous]

I have to wonder if OP is a troll. If not, he/she must be awfully young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.

Explain why white people should be able to pass on their wealth from generation to generation but black people can't. AKA protection of white privilege.

The whole Sovereign Wealth Fund idea is stupid. Social Security is one of the mainstays of the Black community, and there's no way some new allocation of "shares" is going to provide anywhere near the same support for Black disabled or retired people. Plus, we can't afford the transitions costs of dumping Social Security for this sovereign wealth fund. It's not even clear how this thing gets funded "without raising taxes", like it's some notional accounts system that is worthless IRL.

Best to ignore this poster. I'm not a fan of cash reparations either, although I'd absolutely be for improving the Social Security system, improving public education, and national healthcare.

Except social security doesn't help you in the NOW idiot. You have to be retired. A wealth fund can literally provide a guaranteed source of extra income every month. Hilarious how badly you don't know anything about finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.

Explain why white people should be able to pass on their wealth from generation to generation but black people can't. AKA protection of white privilege.

The whole Sovereign Wealth Fund idea is stupid. Social Security is one of the mainstays of the Black community, and there's no way some new allocation of "shares" is going to provide anywhere near the same support for Black disabled or retired people. Plus, we can't afford the transitions costs of dumping Social Security for this sovereign wealth fund. It's not even clear how this thing gets funded "without raising taxes", like it's some notional accounts system that is worthless IRL.

Best to ignore this poster. I'm not a fan of cash reparations either, although I'd absolutely be for improving the Social Security system, improving public education, and national healthcare.

Also, social security is an absolute garbage program. You essentially are paying in ordinate sums of money into a program that provides basically $0 in ROI over decades. It's also going bankrupt. Who in their right mind would willingly fork over thousands of dollars for decades to get $0, possibly even negative ROI after factoring in inflation. Social security sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there may be a moral basis for reparations. But wouldn’t the economic benefits of race based affirmative action over the last decades have to be taken into account too, to arrive at an appropriate payment amount?

How would you measure that?

If you look at the income and wealth gaps, we haven't made any progress.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp9.pdf
"The historical data also reveal that no progress has been made in reducing income and wealth inequalities between black and white households over the past 70 years"

What happens when you take Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg out?

We've significantly increased income inequality over the past several decades. But that's not the same issue as the wealth inequality between white and black people.

Yup - I think the to make the racial wealth disparity stick so that it's exactly the same now as it was in 1950, you have to attribute the wealth of like the 100 astronomically wealthy white people and attribute it to white people generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for paying higher taxes to provide healthcare for all, better schools, and free college for lower-income kids.

I worked in development for 10 years and huge cash transfers aren't the way to go. Teach a man to fish and all that.

How about other forms of reparations?

Do you support the principle but not just handing out cash?

NP here. The principle is abhorrent. My parents and grandparents recieved Holocaust reparations from the German government. That was for their suffering. I would not accept reparations for me. I did not suffer anything close to what they went through.

On the other hand, I do believe society has an obligation to assist people who are poor today. Present conditions that keep them in poverty should be fixed. They are entitled to a decent life and opportunities. Cash is okay, but jobs at living wages is better.

Otherwise, we will be saying Oprah deserves "reparations," but a poor white who grew up in poverty deserves nothing.

What if your parents had never been paid? What if Israel wasn't formed? What if extensive systemic antisemitism was still happening today?

Did you know that the US government still pays (this year $5 million) to support Holocaust survivors living in America? And $3.8B in military aid to Israel in 2019.

Even, some slave owners were compensated:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/opinion/when-slaveowners-got-reparations.html


How much has the US ever paid to survivors of slavery and other forms of black oppression?

My mother's family was compensated. Due to the vagaries of history, my father's family was not. That's how it goes. I would not accept money for him.

Military aid to Israel is not reparations. It's a military alliance. Formation of Israel was perhaps reparations, but that benefited actual refugees, and unfortunately created other refugees who are still suffering.

What about Indians? We took 100 per cent of their land. Do we give it back?

What about Chinese railroad builders? They weren't paid very well and faced years of discrimination. Do they get back compensation for what they should have been paid?

What about women for the last 5,000 years? So many were slaves to their husbands. Do today's men owe women payment for our grandfathers beating our grandmothers?


The point is, history is history. The winners and the losers all end up dead. Their joys and sufferings are over. We can't fix what happened to the dead, not even in theory.

We can however make the world better for those who suffer today. That's what we should be talking about.

Thoughts on how to bridge the wealth gap without reparations?

Focus on systemic racism issues that exist today. It's really that simple. It's disgusting to demand anything called "reparations" for something that happened 400 years ago.

400 years ago? The Civil Rights Act was only passed 56 years ago. At that point, discrimination became illegal, but nothing was done to correct existing injustices and black people still do face discrimination today. Brown v. Board of Education was decided 66 years ago, but our schools remain segregated today. All moving us in the right direction, but the harm of 400 years of slavery and oppression was never corrected and nothing lost was restored.

I agree we should work on systemic racism, but without also addressing the wealth gap we are limited in our ability to transform our country. We can't achieve racial equality until we achieve economic equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.

Explain why white people should be able to pass on their wealth from generation to generation but black people can't. AKA protection of white privilege.

The whole Sovereign Wealth Fund idea is stupid. Social Security is one of the mainstays of the Black community, and there's no way some new allocation of "shares" is going to provide anywhere near the same support for Black disabled or retired people. Plus, we can't afford the transitions costs of dumping Social Security for this sovereign wealth fund. It's not even clear how this thing gets funded "without raising taxes", like it's some notional accounts system that is worthless IRL.

Best to ignore this poster. I'm not a fan of cash reparations either, although I'd absolutely be for improving the Social Security system, improving public education, and national healthcare.

Except social security doesn't help you in the NOW idiot. You have to be retired. A wealth fund can literally provide a guaranteed source of extra income every month. Hilarious how badly you don't know anything about finances.

No need for name calling. You are the one who suggested replacing the national pension fund that keeps millions of elderly people alive with some sort of vague investment fund that doesn't require taxes and sounds like a bad investment for anybody with enough money to invest. Poor people get cheap shares, but they don't have money so they won't be able to buy. Rich people get expensive shares, so they will invest elsewhere. And what exactly will this fund invest in? Who will decide where to invest? Who will take on the risk of losses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for paying higher taxes to provide healthcare for all, better schools, and free college for lower-income kids.

I worked in development for 10 years and huge cash transfers aren't the way to go. Teach a man to fish and all that.

How about other forms of reparations?

Do you support the principle but not just handing out cash?

NP here. The principle is abhorrent. My parents and grandparents recieved Holocaust reparations from the German government. That was for their suffering. I would not accept reparations for me. I did not suffer anything close to what they went through.

On the other hand, I do believe society has an obligation to assist people who are poor today. Present conditions that keep them in poverty should be fixed. They are entitled to a decent life and opportunities. Cash is okay, but jobs at living wages is better.

Otherwise, we will be saying Oprah deserves "reparations," but a poor white who grew up in poverty deserves nothing.

What if your parents had never been paid? What if Israel wasn't formed? What if extensive systemic antisemitism was still happening today?

Did you know that the US government still pays (this year $5 million) to support Holocaust survivors living in America? And $3.8B in military aid to Israel in 2019.

Even, some slave owners were compensated:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/opinion/when-slaveowners-got-reparations.html


How much has the US ever paid to survivors of slavery and other forms of black oppression?

My mother's family was compensated. Due to the vagaries of history, my father's family was not. That's how it goes. I would not accept money for him.

Military aid to Israel is not reparations. It's a military alliance. Formation of Israel was perhaps reparations, but that benefited actual refugees, and unfortunately created other refugees who are still suffering.

What about Indians? We took 100 per cent of their land. Do we give it back?

What about Chinese railroad builders? They weren't paid very well and faced years of discrimination. Do they get back compensation for what they should have been paid?

What about women for the last 5,000 years? So many were slaves to their husbands. Do today's men owe women payment for our grandfathers beating our grandmothers?


The point is, history is history. The winners and the losers all end up dead. Their joys and sufferings are over. We can't fix what happened to the dead, not even in theory.

We can however make the world better for those who suffer today. That's what we should be talking about.

Thoughts on how to bridge the wealth gap without reparations?

Focus on systemic racism issues that exist today. It's really that simple. It's disgusting to demand anything called "reparations" for something that happened 400 years ago.

400 years ago? The Civil Rights Act was only passed 56 years ago. At that point, discrimination became illegal, but nothing was done to correct existing injustices and black people still do face discrimination today. Brown v. Board of Education was decided 66 years ago, but our schools remain segregated today. All moving us in the right direction, but the harm of 400 years of slavery and oppression was never corrected and nothing lost was restored.

I agree we should work on systemic racism, but without also addressing the wealth gap we are limited in our ability to transform our country. We can't achieve racial equality until we achieve economic equality.

Schools are resegregating now and were more desegregated a couple decades ago. I'm not sure you're arguing with a good sense of recent history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be all for creating a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. We have so much money in the country that could be used for wayyyyyyy better investments than crappy programs like social security.

A sovereign wealth fund can be created without increasing taxes, and it can be weighted in its distribution for shares based on HHI. Those below a certain threshold get more shares than those above it. This would attack the root problem of wealth inequality that transcends race, and at the same time African Americans would benefit more because they have less wealth than white people. But its a smarter political play because white people can still benefit too if they're below a threshold. Wealth inequality is a problem for every race.

Is this an "opt-in" model?

You can if you want to. People can buy shares. You could even base the price per share relative to someone's house hold income. Poorer people could pay a lot less for a shares and literally acquire more wealth. No shares would be passed on to kids so that rich people can't buy up huge blocks and pass it to their offspring.

That still gives white people an advantage. If black wealth can't be handed down from generation to generation like it can for white investments then this doesn't really help the root issue: generational wealth accumulation.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

Do y'all understand wealth generation and what it is and is not?

Yes, I understand. Do you?

Sounds like you don't.

Explain why white people should be able to pass on their wealth from generation to generation but black people can't. AKA protection of white privilege.

The whole Sovereign Wealth Fund idea is stupid. Social Security is one of the mainstays of the Black community, and there's no way some new allocation of "shares" is going to provide anywhere near the same support for Black disabled or retired people. Plus, we can't afford the transitions costs of dumping Social Security for this sovereign wealth fund. It's not even clear how this thing gets funded "without raising taxes", like it's some notional accounts system that is worthless IRL.

Best to ignore this poster. I'm not a fan of cash reparations either, although I'd absolutely be for improving the Social Security system, improving public education, and national healthcare.

Also, social security is an absolute garbage program. You essentially are paying in ordinate sums of money into a program that provides basically $0 in ROI over decades. It's also going bankrupt. Who in their right mind would willingly fork over thousands of dollars for decades to get $0, possibly even negative ROI after factoring in inflation. Social security sucks.

Social Security is NOT going bankrupt, it can pay 70-80% of benefits for the next 75 years. It provides things like disability insurance, which is crucial to blacks, that your Sovereign Wealth Fund will never provide.

But this isn’t the thread, take your rubbish to another thread.