Opinion of Forced Savings/Insurance Schemes

[Deus Naturae]

Forced saving schemes are bad but for different reasons depending on what is being done with the saved funds. If they're just being kept in a safe for the saver, forced saving is far inferior to voluntary private saving because while the former only benefits the saver, the latter benefits all of society. When savings are deposited into a private bank account, the funds can then be lent out and invested in production, which benefits large amounts of people. Forced government saving reduces the incentive and ability to engage in productive private saving, thus denying society the benefits thereof.

If the forcibly saved funds are actually being invested in the economy, that's better, but still bad. There is no specific amount that every person needs to save; people should make their own decisions based on their personal situations and the amount they can reap in the future from different investments. If people received the money stolen from them via payroll taxation right now rather than at the point of retirement, they might want to save some of it, but they might also want to spend it on other things,  like putting their kid through college. Alternatively, they might want to invest all of it for their retirement, but they would prefer to invest it in something that will give them a higher return than Social Security. So, circumstances differ for each person, and it's better to let them handle the money than to treat them like children who needs to have decisions made for them by the state. It's true that that people who don't save can end up on welfare, but that's more of a moral hazard argument against the welfare state than an argument for forced saving.

[Deus Naturae]

Oppose on principle. Its not something the government should decide.

Isn't it though? Assuming we don't want to let people go hungry, the state will have to provide a certain amount of care to ensure a proper living standard. And if people are aware that this will be provided, doesn't that give them an incentive to spend wastefully before retirement?

Seems like the debate on health insurance. As long as we aren't willing to let people die in the streets, it's certainly society's (i.e. the state's) business that people are obligated to have a minimum level of health protection.

The state is not the same thing as society. That's an absurd suggestion.