I have noticed that there are many vocal oponents to Social Security private accounts that post here. I use Hatrack primarily as a source of educated opinions that I respect, but that are often different from my own. I would be interested in hearing whether those of you that oppose these accounts could be persuaded to support them if they followed the Galveston Texas model detailed in the above article.
I recognize that there is still the issue of taking money out of the current system. Put that aside for a moment and assume we could cut benefits/change calculation of future benefit growth enough that it is a non issue. (Senator Bennett recently made a proposal that would do just that in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal the other day) So that assumption made, would you support this kind of a system?
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, a transition to such a system would be workable.
Also, it would be possible to move it to more local control while still keeping risk quite low by local governments doing interest rate exchanges (a complex derivative), possibly with the federal government in some instances, but more likely with private banks and other investors.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you support this kind of transition fugu?
Is the opposition you have expressed (or at least I think you have) mostly due to the inclusion of equities as an investment vehicle?
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I recognize that there is still the issue of taking money out of the current system. Put that aside for a moment and assume we could cut benefits/change calculation of future benefit growth enough that it is a non issue."
How can we make this assumption? No credible economist believes it; even the numbers provided by the Bush Administration don't make this claim, once you examine them closely.
And since that's the very crux of the problem, it's kind of ridiculous to put it aside. It's like saying "Assume that you aren't bleeding to death. Put that aside for a moment, and tell me whether you think red is a pretty color."
posted
Most of the opposition is due to the plans being presented by the administration being full of misleading accounting, being pushed with a huge switchover without sensible, gradual transitioning, and seeming to completely ignore the real problems, which are people reaching time to retire, and people becoming unable to work (at least in part), and not having enough money to live decently. Bush's plan doesn't even significantly increase the period of solvency.
posted
I just believe that this was the last, sacred cookie jar to be raided.
Which will be ruined first? Social Security or the Alaskan wildlife preserve?
Next up, the Grand Grand Canyon Dam -- hydropower and lakefront property galore! Think of the benefits! Think of the possibilities! Think of the profit to be gained!!!!
Anyone else getting sick of the days when the worst robbers around are the guys making the rules? Or that those who have the most are working hard, day and night, to make sure they get more of yours and you get less of theirs?
No more bankruptcy protection for credit card debt (which tends to cause most personal bankruptcies)... Faster drug approval with a nod to keeping malpractice and class action lawyers in check... War for oil that results in record oil prices ... drilling for oil at ANWAR at the potential loss of a protected, pristine land... open up the raided coffers of Social Security to pry the crumbs from the mouths of the aged to prop up the stock market and make money for brokers...
It's just making me sick. It's the worst in government -- people who get into politics to use the government as their own picking fields... Scoundrels of the worst stripe, thieves with a bent for publicity.
posted
Other problems with Social Security Reform.
1)Fraud. While there have been some instances where the beneficiaries of SS have defrauded the government, the US Government has never defauded the SS Recipients out of their money. The stock market has a long and rich history of lies, cheats, and frauds that look great until they collapse. World Com, Enron, and all the other fiascos of the past 5 years were the golden children of 10 years ago.
Right now there are promises that only a limited number of safe and secure stocks will be allowed. However, as political pressure increases for ever more and higher returns on investments, and more and more of their SS to be allowed into the market, sooner or later someone is going to have all their money vanish, and turn to the government to support them in their old age.
2) The Hypocratic Argument. "The People of the US can do a better job of investing their money than the government." OK. So why isn't everyone already doing the sane thing and investing wisely for their retirement? Why do we need Social Security in the first place? Because the people of the US are doing a TERRIBLE job investing their money.
3) This is the most recent scream from the "ME" generation.
Yes, the same people who gave us free love, junk bonds, failed S&L's and the wild 80's. All they talk about is Me, me, me, me.
Social Security has two words. The first is Social. Social means of the group or society. SS is not a program designed to help you. Its a program designed to help society in general. Sure, you may be able to do better at investing than the government, but how many stupid people do you know that would not? How many of them thing they are smart?
If we were as smart with our investing as we think we are, then personal bankruptcy's would not be at all time highs. Yet because a person thinks they can get a few more bucks when they retire, forget your less fortunate, less intelligent, less savy, less lucky neighbors, and concentrate on the ME. "I" want to invest "My" social security taxes so that "I" can retire with more of "My" money. Where is the social in that?
They are called "Personal Investment Accounts" because they are all about the person. The Social has become the Personal. Apparently caring for the society, for your neighbors and your fellow countrymen whom you have never met, has died.
Social Responsibility has been replaced by the much more shallow Patriotism.
There is the "Me" and the "We" and the "THEM" for us to hate. The "All of Us" is dead.
but I digress.
4)Security. Social Security's second word is security. It was meant as a safety net for the unfortunate. Instead we are trying to turn it into retirement plans to send us to pleasant places to spend our last decades on earth. We do this by removing some of the security in order to obtain larger returns on our investment.
No matter how you describe it, that means removing some of the security that is in the name Social Security.
5) Nobody knows what this will do to the stock market.
Billions of dollars being invested in a select set of mutual funds can only do one thing, drive the prices of those funds through the roof.
So if you know which funds those will be beforehand, you purchase them now while they are low. If you have a lot of money, you can make a killing on that investment.
But what you are creating is an economic bubble, as this excess money is pumped into a limited number of investments.
Company A is one of the stocks in the mutual funds being offered. It is selling today at $20. Before this goes into effect someone figures out that Company A is going to go up, so they buy lots of its stock. Others join in. It jumps to $50. The first crush of SS investments come in and it jumps again to $70. As this seems to be a continuous source of increasing investment, other investors jump on the bandwagon and the price goes up to $100. However, the second month of investments doesn't meet expectations. Suddenly the stock drops to $95. Investors believe another company will do better with the SS crowd so they start to sell off. The price drops to $90. SS investors see a 10% drop in their retirment funds and begin to panic, as they are ameuturs. Suddenly the stock is down to $70 again. Snowball effect takes place. Everyone starts sticking their money back into SS Plain as the market is obviously going for a drop, and boom, company A finds its stock at $5.
And it did nothing to make this change.
Or how about 2.5 million voters have money in Mutual Fund A. Much of Mutual Fund A is defence contractors. It is time to balance the budget and new expensive projects for the military should go. As a congressman do you vote to kill off these projects when you know it may cost 2.5 million voters a chunk of their retirement money?
or how about Company X violates FTC laws concerning accounting. If you prosecute then all those retiree's of tomorrow loose money. Or maybe its FDA approval of their best selling drug, or EPA decisions on power plant emmisions compliance.
The more I think about this....
6) When the government is a major investor in the business sector, business has finished buying the government. In the 1950's the head of GM said, "What's good for the US is good for General Motors, and what's good for General Motor's is good for the US." Never will this be truer than after we sell out to business interests.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: the US Government has never defauded the SS Recipients out of their money.
Not true. While it's true the government has never missed a SS payment (except maybe temporarily due to a congressional shutdown), in various ways the SS trust has been raided repeatedly. In the Reagan years, various Treasury IOUs were exchanged for SS trust money, I think mostly to pay for the massive savings and loan bailouts. Recently (2004?2003?) it was reported that those IOUs will never be honored, representing one of the most massive transfers of wealth in world history. Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No credible economist believes it; even the numbers provided by the Bush Administration don't make this claim, once you examine them closely.
Tom, the Bush administration had not yet put out an oficial plan so I don't know how you can make that statement. Anyway that is beside the point. The point of this topic is not do you support Bush and his plan. It is why do you oppose private accounts and would you support them if the stock market element was removed like the Galveston Texas situation. Maybe I left out an important assumption. Assume also that President Bush was adamantly opposed to the idea. Could you support it under those circumstances?
There is a combination of future benefit cuts for younger workers and benefit calculation changes that would fix the system. Senator Bennett has proposed such a plan. It centers around changing the way benefit increases are calculated for higher income workers. So it is not an absurd assumption that changes in the system could lead to solvency.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Company A is one of the stocks in the mutual funds being offered. It is selling today at $20. Before this goes into effect someone figures out that Company A is going to go up, so they buy lots of its stock. Others join in. It jumps to $50. The first crush of SS investments come in and it jumps again to $70. As this seems to be a continuous source of increasing investment, other investors jump on the bandwagon and the price goes up to $100. However, the second month of investments doesn't meet expectations. Suddenly the stock drops to $95. Investors believe another company will do better with the SS crowd so they start to sell off. The price drops to $90. SS investors see a 10% drop in their retirment funds and begin to panic, as they are ameuturs. Suddenly the stock is down to $70 again. Snowball effect takes place. Everyone starts sticking their money back into SS Plain as the market is obviously going for a drop, and boom, company A finds its stock at $5.
Dan, this is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start. In the first place the whole point of this post was would you support a private accounts plan with no stock market element. Secondly your portrayal of the stock markets reaction to an influx of social security money is ridiculous. The investments would be broadly diversified. They would be invested in mutual funds that represent the domestic stock market as a whole (A common index used for this is the Wilshire 5000)There would be no speculative opportunities for investors trying to guess which 2 stocks the social security money is going to be invested in. Increased demand for stocks in general would likely increase average P/E ratios but the magnitude of this effect would be very small. It would take a very long time before the amount of money invested in private social security accounts became significant compared to the size of the market as a whole.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the biggest problem with social security is that people think it's supposed to pay for retirement. I was taught in American history that it was insurance against another Great Depression. If everything else were wiped out, you wouldn't starve to death.
Since most people assume it's their retirement in one easy monthly check, wouldn't it make sense to give them the opportunity to do so? Let them invest in a mix of stocks and bonds. Educate them on diversification and spotting scams. Continue to provide the bare minimum for people who are not able to invest or unlucky or plan poorly.
See as a bank teller, and now a teller at a credit union, I see what people do with their money. Poor people spend their money differently from the middle class. (I assume both groups spend differently from the rich, but I never have to answer questions on their accounts.)
In general, poor people don't have savings. They have nothing put back for an emergency. They certainly don't have money for retirement, and if you gave it to them, they'd probably spend it. Letting them invest money they can't touch might be good for them. At the least, it couldn't hurt. (Assuming that only some of the funds go into these accounts. The way I've heard it, you'd still get some money to eat on even if you lost everything in the investment account.)
Personally, I'm all for allowing annuities. I'm a big fan of construction bonds, CDs, and other long term, low risk investments. The stock market appeals to the same people who like to play the lottery. People looking for that big score. Let's show people how much they can earn investing consistenly over a long period of time. The average person works around 40 years. That's a lot of time for interst to accrue.
Since we already know a huge chunk of Americans won't help themselves save for retirement, and the government already has a program in place to help them a little, doesn't it make sense to let the program help them a lot?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Safe, slow, amd low interest. Not a bad idea, but not a great one either.
quote: stock market appeals to the same people who like to play the lottery
Really? I never played the lottery. In fact I don't even go to casinos. I think your thinking on the Stock Market is the "buy, sell, buy, sell." It doesn't have to be that way. If you hold on to the shares you own you will recieve dividends. The little bit I do own has amounted to almost $20 bucks last year. Not much, but when you consider that I don't yet own more than 5 shares in any of the 20 some companies I have shares in that's not bad. Just got to know what to look for.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The point of this topic is not do you support Bush and his plan. It is why do you oppose private accounts and would you support them if the stock market element was removed like the Galveston Texas situation."
I'm of two minds about private accounts. I frankly don't think they're worth the trouble unless we're dealing with stock, as the higher returns are only possible due to increased risk. However, increased risk correlates directly to a chance of reduced profit, by definition.
So my question becomes, then: why not work with the status quo, in which people are guaranteed a safe amount of return (assuming we continue to pump money into the program to keep it solvent, as Bush's proposal also calls for us to do), and let anyone who wants to dump money into private stocks do so at their leisure, and in an amount equivalent to their comfort level?
I don't know about you, but I already have personal, tax-deferred retirement accounts. I contribute rather generously to both an IRA and my 403(b). What would a move to government-sponsored retirement accounts offer me? *shrug*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know what the difference between SocialSecurity and stock/bondholding? SocialSecurity recipients earned their money. Stock/bondholders get their money from taxes on workers' wages.
posted
Actually, that's not true. I think most SS recipients go through their SS contributions plus interest in 3-4 years after retirement. If they live longer than that, they get the money from taxes on workers and businesses, or you could also say they get some from the leftovers of the people who died early and never used their full benefit.
quote: Stock/bondholders get their money from taxes on workers' wages.
Not sure what you mean by "taxes" here. Certainly stock value is increased by labor, but of course there is also capital involved.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where do company earnings come from? Workers. As for taxes, just using standard neo"conservative" definition: money taken from workers at gunpoint by the government. Without government to back their claim, by what means does a stock/bondholder have to take earnings from workers?
Admittedly, I'm being a bit hyperbolic/sarcastic. But this SocialSecurity vs Stockholding argument needs a teeny tiny itsy bitsy eeny weeny bit of grounding in reality.
1) Whether "earnings" or "benefits", the money is coming from the same place.
2) There is no SocialSecurity surplus to invest in the stock&bond markets. The politicians have spent 100% of the money which was supposed to create the SocialSecurityTrustFund, and replaced them with IOUs. They are still spending 100% of the taxes which were supposed to build the SocialSecurityTrustFund and replacing them with IOUs. In fact, this year, Dubya has requested that Congress issue $100billion more in IOUs to the SocialSecurityTrustFund than is being taken in through SocialSecurityTaxes.
There won't be any money until the IOUs/bonds held in the SocialSecurityTrustFund are redeemed. At which point there will be zero dollars in the SocialSecurityTrustFund, but income from SocialSecurity Taxes will exceed outlays. The problem being that the money which was supposed to have been held in the SocialSecurityTrustFund was supposed to pay for the increase in the number of retirees. So there never will be a point at which income from SocialSecurityTaxes exceeds outlays.
quote: Where do company earnings come from? Workers
Last I checked it was mostly from consumers.
Obviously you want this system when you retire or get up there in age. I'll just say that I had no hope in this system since I was in high school. I barely believe that even my pension will be there when I retire. So I started investing several years ago as a retirement/I'm an old basta%$ account. I invest in mutual funds, the stock market and I have two bank accounts. The second bank account I don't have immediate access to. Sometimes I have to make small sacrifices to make these happen. So far it has already been worth it. I needed money to make truck and insurance payments...sold my 4 shares in Google. Enough was made off that to pay for both and buy some food.
But not to digress too much, Example: The BSA were given a 23-story Philtower Building in Tulsa, Oklahoma from the gracious Waite Phillips. The building was sold to help out the Philmont Scout Program. The money and some from the regular scout account went into a trust fund. This trust fund goes at about 10% (pretty dang good). 10% of roughly $100 mill is a lot of money. This is how the slow and safe works as well.
However, I do not trust the government to not skim off the top. They'll find a reason.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So my question becomes, then: why not work with the status quo, in which people are guaranteed a safe amount of return (assuming we continue to pump money into the program to keep it solvent, as Bush's proposal also calls for us to do), and let anyone who wants to dump money into private stocks do so at their leisure, and in an amount equivalent to their comfort level?
Tom, my point was that even though this option exists, a pretty good chunk of America will never take advantage of it. They have never made saving money a priority and will starve in their old age without someone looking out for them.
Yeah, personal accounts are mostly going to help the rich since they have all the inside knowledge on whose company is doing what. It'll help the middle class some since they generally have enough education to take advantage of it. And there's a faint glimmer of hope that it might help poor people learn how to invest and give them enough money to not have to choose between heart pills and food this month. Cause Social Security ain't gonna do it, and giving all retirees enough to live comfortably on really will bankrupt us.
Maybe the account needs built in financial advice and pop up windows asking if you're sure before buying a more volatile stock. And Stan, you're right. My statement on the stock market was poorly chosen. My dad always encouraged me to shadow the S&P 500 since there's a decent gain for a fairly low risk. But stocks will appeal to some people the way gambling does. Put it all on the long shot so the pay out is better. There's a lot of people who could get real hungry that way.
aspectre, sure there's no surplus. If there was, we wouldn't be looking at a budget crisis just down the road. I don't call it a Social Security crisis since the program can continue to pay for itself for a bit more. But if it did, Congress would lose a huge chunk of money they've spent on other things. If we keep Social Security afloat, where do we get the money for the rest of the budget? Diverting future funds into accounts with a better rate of return and keeping the programs that need the money right now seems to make some sense. I just wish Congress would act like real Republicans and cut the pork. We're supposed to be the party of less federal government, not government handouts.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom, my point was that even though this option exists, a pretty good chunk of America will never take advantage of it. They have never made saving money a priority and will starve in their old age without someone looking out for them.
That's actually the point of Social Security, which is why it's linked to Cost of Living and inflation. It pays out enough money to prevent starvation.
If people want to live well, they can take out IRAs and the like on their own initiative.
The only people who don't benefit from Social Security are the rich, who -- thanks to the payment cap -- don't get as much out of it as they put in. For them, it is a genuine tax -- and that, more than anything else, is what Bush's plan is meant to fix. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So my question becomes, then: why not work with the status quo, in which people are guaranteed a safe amount of return
Because Tom, people are guaranteed exactly nothing! The system is running out of money and changes will have to be made. We will have to raise taxes dramatically, change benefit calculations and pay outs, and/or add private accounts. These are the facts. Pretending the system is fine and that we have a "guaranteed safe return" is ridiculous.
quote: I don't know about you, but I already have personal, tax-deferred retirement accounts. I contribute rather generously to both an IRA and my 403(b). What would a move to government-sponsored retirement accounts offer me? *shrug*
You obviously see the benefits of investing in tax deffered vehicles. I guess my question for you is if you could take that same money you invest in your 403(b) and IRA and invest it in the current social security system would you do so? Of course not. Why? Because it is a terrible investment. Why then do you not see the benefit of taking some of the money in the terrible investment and moving it into a plan that will be very similar to your 403(b)?
quote:If people want to live well, they can take out IRAs and the like on their own initiative.
The poor don't have the money to take out IRAs. They are living paycheck to paycheck. Wouldn't it be nice if they too could build wealth in some way?
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Because Tom, people are guaranteed exactly nothing!"
Wrong. Unlike a private account, under the current account people are indeed promised something.
The problem here is that the government may not be able to keep its promises, thanks to repeated pillaging of its own bonds.
But this problem doesn't go away under the Bush plan; in fact, his plan calls for selling other bonds to fill the gaps in Social Security, in other words simply transferring our existing SS shortfall to the federal debt column.
We could do this right now -- without mandating risky private accounts -- and achieve the same end.
------
quote:I guess my question for you is if you could take that same money you invest in your 403(b) and IRA and invest it in the current social security system would you do so? Of course not. Why? Because it is a terrible investment.
This isn't true, actually. Social Security pays on par with most wage-adjusted annuities, and in fact pays back fairly handsomely given the relatively low risk associated with the investment; it's considerably safer than the bond market, and doesn't return much less.
----
By the way, your "shouldn't the poor get a chance to put money in IRAs" bit is a little disingenous; under the Bush plan, the minimum fixed payments paid to a SS recipient are pro-rated based on private account investment. What this means is that wealthy investors will be able to sock away more of their own money in these private accounts without hitting the maximum payment caps, while at the same time poorer investors who foolishly decide to do so will, if their investments don't make up the difference, not receive as high a payment as they would have otherwise received based on the minimum SS monthly allocation.
In other words, the richer you are, the more you benefit from this plan; the poorer you are, the more you're likely to be hurt by it.
quote: Unlike a private account, under the current account people are indeed promised something
Exactly. People are promised something. They are guaranteed nothing. The government reserves the right to change the rules at any time. You have no constitutional right to receive the social security payments the govt has promised.
quote: But this problem doesn't go away under the Bush plan; in fact, his plan calls for selling other bonds to fill the gaps in Social Security,
There you go again with the Bush plan. There is not yet a Bush plan for you to oppose. Bush has said put everything on the table except rate increases. He has not ruled out raising the wage level subject to social security tax. He has only said he wants private accounts so all americans can build wealth not subject to govt whims and that he will not accept a bandaid solution that only make the system solvent for another 25 or 50 years.
quote: Social Security pays on par with most wage-adjusted annuities, and in fact pays back fairly handsomely given the relatively low risk associated with the investment; it's considerably safer than the bond market
Not true. The IRR (internal rate of return)varies signigicantly depending on the situation.(age, marital status, wage level,life expectancy for different ethnic groups etc.) Some people may end up with an inflation adjusted return close to the govt bond rate but many people don't come close to that and many end up with negative returns. Here are some examples: Social security scenarios It is my understanding that the average IRR is about 1.6% adjusted for inflation. Govt bonds typically pay about 2% adjusted for inflation. But remember, the govt cannot legaly change the rate it is paying on already issued bonds. It can change the rules on social security at any time.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There you go again with the Bush plan. There is not yet a Bush plan for you to oppose. Bush has said put everything on the table except rate increases. He has not ruled out raising the wage level subject to social security tax. He has only said he wants private accounts so all americans can build wealth not subject to govt whims and that he will not accept a bandaid solution that only make the system solvent for another 25 or 50 years.
Again, what part of "these fixes don't require private accounts" don't you understand? Raising the wage level subject to Social Security tax, again, does not require private accounts.
"The IRR (internal rate of return)varies signigicantly depending on the situation.(age, marital status, wage level,life expectancy for different ethnic groups etc.)"
Absolutely. While I'm skeptical of the Heritage Foundation's cherry-picked numbers, especially since the "average" IRR surely reflects current maximum payments based on need, I should point out that one of my primary objections is that the IRR is dramatically better for the needy under the status quo, who in many cases bump up against the minimum payment. It's also worth noting that the Heritage Foundation's numbers include presumptions of death -- particularly their "young African-American male" -- that, IMO, should not be calculated into the assumption at all. Their "expected annualized rate of return" is predicated on the assumption that a significant number of the people involved will never collect Social Security benefits at all.
posted
I have never said we can't fix social security without private accounts. We could raise taxes and or cut benefits tomorrow and the system would be fixed (at least for a while) but what would that do to the economy? What would that do to return projections for money invested in the social security system?(higher taxes plus lower benefits equals even lower return on investment) The point is that fixing the system without the addition of private accounts is just not very attractive.
If there was no problem with social security as is, I could understand and maybe even support your position. But given the fact that we must make changes, why not at least consider the idea of finding a way to allow people to have control over there own money and thus their own futures?
I hate to make accusations (especially as a newbie ) but I wonder if your opposition to private accounts, no matter what the details end up being, could come at least partially from the fact that the Bush administration is pushing the idea. Bush in favor = bad idea
I would say I agree with Bush Administration policy about 50% of the time. I think history will show they are on the right side of this one.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point is that fixing the system without the addition of private accounts is just not very attractive.
It depends on what you consider the primary goal of a Social Security fix. If the goal is to keep the program solvent for those who genuinely need it, providing a minimum standard of living for people in retirement, private accounts add risk without adding any guaranteed benefit. If, however, the goal is to maximize savings vehicles for people who can safely absorb a level of risk, private accounts are the only way to go.
But here's the problem: for people who can safely absorb risk, there's no real need for Social Security at all. These people can already invest in accounts with higher risk and consequently higher reward. It's the ones who can't afford to lose their retirement funds, unfortunately, who will be most tempted by higher returns -- but Social Security is, first and foremost, supposed to be that safety net. Turning it into a semi-mandatory IRA does no one any favors, and fundamentally changes its nature from a way of guaranteeing the quality of life of poor elderly to just another investment vehicle.
I believe quite strongly that this is deliberate; fiscal conservatives have long opposed the existence of any sort of retirement assistance, which Social Security -- with its maximum and minimum wage-adjusted payouts -- is. Transforming it into an index fund has been a long-term goal of theirs, and this would be a nail in that coffin.
quote: I hate to make accusations (especially as a newbie ) but I wonder if your opposition to private accounts, no matter what the details end up being, could come at least partially from the fact that the Bush administration is pushing the idea. Bush in favor = bad idea
You've insinuated this on three separate threads, holden. I have so far failed to dignify it with a response, and hoped you would take the hint. Frankly, I find it highly offensive; I think it is clear from my discussion of this issue that I'm aware of the topic and its underlying dependencies, and speak not from an atavistic dislike of our president and kneejerk opposition to his policies but rather a genuine concern for what I consider a flawed proposition.
Hopefully, this sort of straightforward refutation will nip further speculation in this vein in the bud; it's off-base, I'm afraid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went too far. We obviously have very different views on this topic and many others involving the scope and purpose of government. In the future I will refrain from questioning your motives no matter how much I disagree with your conclusions.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, it's cool. I just get tired of the "you're a Bush-hater, so I can dismiss your argument!" bit.
I will freely admit to hating Bush. However, I hate Bush because I have yet to see him propose a program that I haven't disliked. In other words, my disapproval of Bush springs from his policies, rather than the other way around. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Really? I never played the lottery. In fact I don't even go to casinos. I think your thinking on the Stock Market is the "buy, sell, buy, sell." It doesn't have to be that way. If you hold on to the shares you own you will recieve dividends. The little bit I do own has amounted to almost $20 bucks last year. Not much, but when you consider that I don't yet own more than 5 shares in any of the 20 some companies I have shares in that's not bad. Just got to know what to look for.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Raising the wage level subject to Social Security tax, again, does not require private accounts. 
