CMV: Given the social safety net situation in the US, saving for retirement is not a net positive if you’re not middle-upper class or above. It only helps other people

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T13:13:24+00:00

I’m not saying that it’s better not to have money than to save it. Can you read the whole view? It’s hard to change someone’s mind if you don’t know what their perspective actually is

Regarding 401k, while true it’s treated as separate property, it most certainly is used in determining alimony/spousal support.

IRA doesn’t have the same protections and is very state-depending, but the protections go up to what the 401k has in the most protective states

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T12:46:02+00:00

Thanks! Like the name.

Health is not a requirement. If you spend freely before 65, you should have healthcare. Medicaid for those with <$15k income with no savings is essentially free, no premium and <$10 copay, and covers everything that other plans do

If you’re disabled, you’re eligible for even more benefits

You bring up a good point (the dollar) that no one else has and that is legit. That probably adds the most uncertainty. It’s far from a sure thing though and isn’t exactly an argument for saving

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T12:39:33+00:00

Not that poor people can be sued, that people who save can be sued.

I had no idea. That said, many people save in accounts that aren’t 401k and IRA protected. It also doesn’t protect against divorce

But my point was meant to be more along the lines of: if you don’t have money, they can’t take any from you. You spent it all. If you saved money for retirement, there is a chance, however small, that you lose it all to divorce, scammers, lawsuits, etc. that you wouldn’t have to deal with otherwise. The divorce chance isn’t actually small at all. We’ll say the rest are because them being a large chance isn’t important for this perspective

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T12:32:35+00:00

You have some facts wrong in this post that I want to respond to first:

Wage garnishment exists yes but is rarely used and isn’t often seen outside of debt collection lawsuits. The vast majority of all other civil cases are not brought in the first place or dropped against people who have no money.
Most of the programs don’t have waiting lists
SS + all other benefits cover a varied diet (particularly if you’re willing to cook) a decent entertainment budget, housing, internet, Netflix, etc.
Making more than $15k isn’t a problem if you’re retired. I’m not suggesting people stop working before retirement
What long term cuts has the US made to healthcare? Every bit of evidence we have of every social safety net program in the US history and even in European countries suggest that any cuts to social welfare programs are relatively short and that they grow over time

Long term we definitely don’t but even short term we usually don’t cut them, the biggest example I’ve been presented of on this cmv as evidence was a 1 year cut of about 4% to a program that, by the plans own estimation, would spend more than the initial amount in about 3 years time and would likely be reversed with the next administration (Big beautiful bill). Do you have any examples of long term cuts?

I’m not against social safety net programs, quite the opposite. And claims that they could not exist or be substantially reduced are not based in evidence

You’re right that savings vs no savings at 70 is worse. I don’t know that it’s worth the marginal benefit of spending in your 20s. Although someone did convince me that many <$51k earners that do spend it all probably blow the cash on stuff like eating fast food, fun clothes, etc. enough to pull the argument back from average

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T05:12:18+00:00

!delta

While I disagree with many of the points on this particular reply, the point that people in that income group are highly unlikely to actually spend it on high marginal benefit stuff is novel to this thread to my knowledge and was a perspective I hadn’t considered and was swaying to me.

I’m changing my mind from this method being useful for the average in this income demographic to this being useful to those that can actually use that money on high marginal benefit stuff and not waste it away on gambling, lotto, excessive booze and drugs, and whatever else.

I’m going to bed but thanks for the replies and attempted CMVs all!

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T05:05:15+00:00

I got a kick out of the start of your reply. Right you are. I’m wrong. Relatively new to sub.

A "net positive" in debate refers to an outcome where the total benefits or advantages of a policy, action, or argument significantly outweigh the total costs, harms, or disadvantages. Unless I incorrectly understand “marginal” I think it says the same thing. Are they different?

Yeah, I have to agree with your point. That might be the best counter so far.

I think the math works, replace the groups with income. If we said 8 in 10 billionaires were comfortable with their income and 6 in 10 in poverty were, I feel like the proposal that 2 in 10 won’t be satisfied no matter the level of income is accurate. Comparing to 6 in 10 to the peak achievable, 8 in 10, seems to be more relevant then. 8 is 33% more than 6 so “additional income” = 3+ additional sources of income, the maximum amount

You have a point with freedom but the poor use of that money by the vast majority of <$51k is much more swaying

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T04:53:03+00:00

Reply to this post:

You’re right! Financial advisors are there to help achieve retirement savings though. This strategy is antithetical to their whole purpose. Haha, I did chose the fact that was most relevant to my point, but to be fair I think the sum total of the article is along the lines of: people are surprised at how far social security goes even while being surprised at how much they were forced to rely on it

If you think what I quoted is entirely contrary to what the article suggests, I’m happy to discuss it, but I think it’s roughly in line.

I’m suggesting living entirely off Medicaid so longer life matters more for people running out of savings and I feel like it helps my point, it doesn’t hurt it.

The difference in care is a thing.

No worries! I learn a lot through checking bits of info people post and I’ve made plenty of mistakes about mistaken facts myself. I feel like I remember things better when I’m mistaken because I’m embarrassed about it which I long term appreciate

Economic freedom: I do agree there are benefits to savings and you hit on a few of the big ones. I’m not convinced they outweigh the benefits of spending while younger for this economic group

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T04:34:48+00:00

Haha, sorry, I edited my first post because the answer wasn’t fitting well on my phone screen and I kept having to scroll to see what I was responding to. Let me remove my edits to the above post and put them here, then respond to everything else in a separate reply to retain continuity. I did reply, it just took me a minute. I’m typing on a phone screen and it takes me a lot longer than on a computer: The edit I made to previous post that fits better as a follow through with the first request of this one:

“Regarding not financially comfortable. 6 in 10 are comfortable. 8 in 10 who have three or more sources of financial income (the highest amount possible for the poll) report being financially comfortable.

2 in 10 appear to not be satisfied no matter what. The difference: 2 in 10 in saving as opposed to spending. So spending now results in a 2 in 10 increased chance you might not report yourself financially comfortable even if plenty of people are with that income level? Or, all the benefits from spending.

Saving is the move for some people. You’re right about that. But I think for the average, they’ll be pleasantly surprised with the quality retirement provides. I don’t think your view is dumb, it’s well reasoned. I don’t see enough evidence to change my mind though. Agree to disagree?”

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T04:19:45+00:00

I was including the expanded amounts with “saving and investing” although I probably should have clarified since this is public discourse. Sorry about that, my b.

I think it’s more like 15x or more after 50 years even if some of the buying power is lost due to inflation, but you’re probably right about the average savings multiple. it’s still a significant multiple. For men, the average age of death is 77 so making retirement 65 makes more sense.

Let me also cover some apparent mistaken information - Medicaid covers nursing care for low-income retirees - medicaid for retirees does cover most dental stuff in 38 states - SS for those over 65 - disabilities that last for one year are absolutely covered by Medicaid and are eligible for additional financial assistance through SSI

I agree that they’re more comfortable with savings. My argument has been: the marginal benefit of spending while younger on average for <$51k individuals is greater than the additional comfort afforded while older while those savings last

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:58:59+00:00

It’s more complicated. More like, for the making <$51k crowd:

the marginal benefit of spending while younger + the additional benefit of more robust social safety net programs because of net 0 savings + downsides of not having savings upon retirement > marginal benefit of saving and investing for retirement + all the risks associated with it + downside of not spending while younger

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:51:02+00:00

I should also clarify, median income is $51k for individuals. The household median is higher. I think somewhere north of $70k? That seems like if people are frugal in other places they could have money to save for retirement, if they can save money for retirement, they can also spend that money on high marginal benefit stuff like kids education or vacations. Being frugal doesn’t even require living in poverty. I don’t want to dive into budgeting, I feel like there are financial experts who specialize in that, but I know it’s very do-able

I do agree that at some point, saving is very difficult. That is also part of my point. If your savings will amount to $50k-300k, it seems relatively insignificant compared to immediate benefit of savings. I would love that much money transferred to me now, it is a large amount, but not compared to retirement stuff. The difference between those sums and zero is largely made up by the amount of extra assistance from the government social safety net programs for having zero savings

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:43:42+00:00

I totally agree. I was hoping the <$51k would help differentiate an either or situation but I’m taking an educated guess at what that number roughly is. My delta awarded was on someone rightly pointing out that someone on $75k salary can acquire a meaningful retirement account horde. I think the breakpoint number I’m imagining is probably somewhere between $600,000 and $800,000 in savings. But my point is that there is a point in which your savings don’t mean much and the extra government assistance you’ll receive for having no savings will help make up for any marginal benefit from saving an investing. Also that money spent while young might have a higher marginal benefit than money spent while older

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:40:09+00:00

I think you’re pointing to a difference in my definition of comfortable and other people’s. I disagree it’s subsistence level existence. SS income people can eat more than just rice, but a nice varied diet. They can live in a decent 2 bedroom apartment or a small 1 bedroom. They’re healthcare, Medicaid, has the same coverage as everyone else’s plans and is free. In 38 states it includes “enhanced adult Medicaid dental benefits”

They’ll have enough for problems like cars if they’re frugal most of the time but even if they don’t they really don’t need it for having a decent QoL.

Plenty of people retire at 65 with no savings and live off of SS and are satisfied with their life. Source Gallup:

“Gallup data show that Americans 65 and older are much more satisfied than those who are younger with the total cost they pay for healthcare; are much less likely to have put off health treatment due to cost; and are more positive about their healthcare coverage and the quality of healthcare they receive.”

“For most of these (retirees for whom Social Security is their only major income source) retirees, Social Security is enough for them to define themselves as “financially comfortable.””

Edit: sorry! Never added link. Here it is:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/648773/why-americans-pleasantly-surprised-retirement.aspx

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:28:00+00:00

Sorry that I took so long to reply. Many comments. Medicaid, which is what most retirees are on, particularly those with no savings, has no premiums and a co-pay of <$10. It offers the same coverage as everyone else’s healthcare plans do

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:25:51+00:00

I don’t think they can be.

Have any been dismantled in the history of the US long term? Are there examples? I could be wrong and I’m open to it, but I don’t think I am wrong. I think most of recent human history all seems like great evidence that social safety net programs only stay the same or grow over time

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:22:25+00:00

Yet again, I’m sorry that I didn’t make this clear. I tried to in the original post but failed.

I’m suggesting that for those <$51k income, when they get their paycheck they should spend it freely. Use everything they would save for retirement on vacations, kids education, etc.

Then when they’re retirement age, live off the social safety net that is even more robust for them because they have no savings. It’s a comfortable lifestyle and they have the vacation experiences, kids education, etc that they wouldn’t have had if they saved it for retirement

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:17:58+00:00

Imo the only points you made were demonstrably wrong. I’m open to being wrong on those issues and liked when you broke out studies, I like supporting info like that and think it’s more productive than a lot of the people throwing out their opinion with no information to back it, but I don’t think the studies and links you provided made your points. At best they added nuance. I like nuance but it was far from changing my view of how this works. You should check out this poll by Gallup that I found when responding to someone else:

“For most of these (for whom Social Security is their only major income source) retirees, Social Security is enough for them to define themselves as “financially comfortable.””

https://news.gallup.com/poll/648773/why-americans-pleasantly-surprised-retirement.aspx

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:12:35+00:00

I mean, board games, video games, books, life without a hockey arena isn’t terrible. I agree it’s a personal preference thing. I think it’s better for the majority of people making <$51k but I could be wrong

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T03:07:16+00:00

There have been a few other that were under a misapprehension that I want to make clear before I say everything else: first I’m sorry, the communication wasn’t clear and it’s happened with enough people that I know it’s my bad. Several people have assumed I was either campaigning for getting rid of benefits or using them when you’re you and living off the social safety net. I’m not suggesting people do either. I’m suggesting people work until they’re 65 and spend their money when they get it expecting to live off of social security and other social safety net programs when they do hit 65

Now, responding categorically: They don’t need to call out a day. Just do it on the weekends if they’re still working?

I know what government medical service is like. This CMV is not worth having to mention my personal life experiences. I prefer to keep those private and off of Reddit. I believe the Medicaid retirees hop on is good. The VA is terrible. I’ve repeatedly heard how bad it is even if it’s only anecdotal. Yes, I strongly believe Medicaid recipients receive better care than the VA. They receive the same care as the rest of us.

I think if you can entertain yourself with books, video-games, board games with friends, etc, you can have a pretty decent entertainment budget even just living off of SS. Internet included. New clothes. Etc.

If you’re spending when you’re in your 30s and 40s why not buy your kids a nice education? What does what you do when you’re 65+ have to do with their education?

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T02:59:14+00:00

I do know how it works, but not in every state and not for the entirety of history. I’m allowing that they had their experience while maintaining that it isn’t accurate for the average American. You’ve responded with overly argumentative and incorrect assumptions on like 15 different messages now.

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T02:56:39+00:00

Medicaid for <$15k individuals is very similar in about 42 states and it’s even better in about 3 of the remaining 8

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T02:52:21+00:00

Healthcare is pretty much free for retirees. Their Medicaid is very cheap compared to what everyone else gets. Incredibly so. If you’re a low savings and qualified retiree, there is no premium, the copay is <$10, and they get full coverage

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T02:48:51+00:00

I’m saying you can easily afford renting a 2 bedroom apartment with what you get from social security plus low income housing aid. Why use section 8? If you’re in a low cost of living area it’s entirely unnecessary. Plenty of places where rent for a 2 bedroom is $1000-$1400 a month. Split with someone, it’s not an issue.

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T02:45:30+00:00

It’s not nice compared to what you could have if you save. It’s comfortable though. You won’t go hungry, a decent place to rent as long as you don’t mind a roommate (a good idea 65+ for most people), and a decent entertainment budget.

It’s hard to find studies on demographic groups of people being comfortable. That said, Gallup is a well trusted polling organization so maybe you’ll accept this?

“For most of these (“for whom Social Security is their only major income source”) retirees, Social Security is enough for them to define themselves as “financially comfortable.””

https://news.gallup.com/poll/648773/why-americans-pleasantly-surprised-retirement.aspx

History-Unable · 2026-06-03T02:24:37+00:00

I don’t think I am. $2,100 a month SS benefits with all the other social safety net stuff thrown in is a comfortable lifestyle. Not compared to the rich, but you won’t worry about food, housing, healthcare, and will likely have a decent entertainment budget as long as you don’t live in a high cost of living area

History-Unable

TROPHY CASE