you are not proving anything, you are only pulling a number out of thin air and pretending it can create a mythical $1.2 million retirement package at an unheard of 11% rate of return. if you were in a mathematical proof class they would tell you that you can't prove something works for all cases by using a specific case, especially such a specific case that you assert is correct without showing any evidence to support it.

FICA gets taken out of your gross wages with some few exceptions. but for all intents and purposes it is pre-tax.

regardless, the overall point is this: your mysterious minimum wage earner who can afford $48/month for a retirement investment will never invest their post-tax income. social security is taken before they even know it was there, and they will never have that money to invest for themselves. and you are still missing the point that when this minimum wage earner finally retires, social security will be the only thing they can rely on for income. again, if you want to replace it with something else, convince companies to offer guaranteed pensions again, rather than 401(k)s -- which the majority of minimum wage earners will also probably never have access to.

and you are missing the point here as well: the purpose of SS is to provide a minimum retirement income to everyone. you have the legal right to refuse to apply to take benefits when you get older. but stop trying to frame the issue as "private investment is better" because that's not what SS is about. of course you can get a better return on investment on private plans if you invest intelligently and have the disposable income to do so. but if you lose your job at age 50 and work several part-time jobs (if you're lucky) until 65, you're going to appreciate that benefit being there to supplement whatever other investments you've put away if they still exist.

unfortunately, this is the reality we face now. too many older workers are being pushed out of the workforce early and having to make do with jobs that they are forced to take because they are not able to move up in their chosen profession anymore. you're going to tell all of these people they should refuse the benefits they're entitled to because you don't like having to pay into the system. you're no better than the people who say they shouldn't pay into public education while simultaneously complaining about how stupid our kids are today. guess what? just because you don't get as much money back as you want doesn't mean you aren't making someone else's life a little better. if you can't see the purpose in paying into a system which allows everyone to retire with some degree of income stability then you don't understand what it means to be a member of society.

no, you're a parasite on the social security system because you are going to grumble about how much you pay into it, and that you can get a better deal on your own, but then still collect it when you finally retire. part of being in a supposedly enlightened society is the fact that we pay into a tax program which provides us something in return. good for you that you are working and feel like you can do better than the government in preparing for your old age and retirement years. i highly doubt you are going to be self-sufficient all the way up until you die, but i sincerely hope you are.

i'm also not going to argue the semantics of what you've posted, but you have used the words "foolish" and "bad" to describe your opposition to social security, and you've said it should be replaced. but if you can't see that helping people who are less fortunate than yourself is everyone's responsibility in this country, then i'm not sure what it is you expect by continuing to function in this societal framework we all share.