KRC Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Something needs to be done. Personal accounts HAVE to be part of any social security reform. 721644[/snapback] I agree, but you need to get around the typical scare tactics being used associated with private accounts: you could lose your money. Of course, if you keep it in SS, you will lose your money, but that is never mentioned. Congress does not want to give up SS, becuase they use it as a source of revenue for their spending. The KRC Plan: have both systems. On your W-2, there will be a checkbox to say whether you want the deduction from your paycheck to be sent in to the government for SS or whether you want it sent to a similar system to 401k. It is a good compromise. The people who want private accounts can have their private accounts. People who want to rely on SS can keep SS. You are going to create a deficit in this system, but you will create a deficit regarldess of any solution you provide. To help with this, you can increase the age to collect SS to keep it in line with the original scheme. I am against cutting benefits. To make up the rest of the deficit, you cut federal spending. Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I agree, but you need to get around the typical scare tactics being used associated with private accounts: you could lose your money. Of course, if you keep it in SS, you will lose your money, but that is never mentioned. Congress does not want to give up SS, becuase they use it as a source of revenue for their spending. The KRC Plan: have both systems. On your W-2, there will be a checkbox to say whether you want the deduction from your paycheck to be sent in to the government for SS or whether you want it sent to a similar system to 401k. It is a good compromise. The people who want private accounts can have their private accounts. People who want to rely on SS can keep SS. You are going to create a deficit in this system, but you will create a deficit regarldess of any solution you provide. To help with this, you can increase the age to collect SS to keep it in line with the original scheme. I am against cutting benefits. To make up the rest of the deficit, you cut federal spending. Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. 721786[/snapback] Effing brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I agree, but you need to get around the typical scare tactics being used associated with private accounts: you could lose your money. Of course, if you keep it in SS, you will lose your money, but that is never mentioned. Congress does not want to give up SS, becuase they use it as a source of revenue for their spending. The KRC Plan: have both systems. On your W-2, there will be a checkbox to say whether you want the deduction from your paycheck to be sent in to the government for SS or whether you want it sent to a similar system to 401k. It is a good compromise. The people who want private accounts can have their private accounts. People who want to rely on SS can keep SS. You are going to create a deficit in this system, but you will create a deficit regarldess of any solution you provide. To help with this, you can increase the age to collect SS to keep it in line with the original scheme. I am against cutting benefits. To make up the rest of the deficit, you cut federal spending. Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. 721786[/snapback] Sure you don't want to run in '08? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Sure you don't want to run in '08? 722020[/snapback] Doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Doubt it. 722101[/snapback] Just checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Under this scheme, I see a gradual phasing out of SS. The younger generation will put their money into private accounts. As the older people start to pass away, there will be less and less people relying on SS. The program will phase itself out. 721786[/snapback] You make a reallllly big assumption here: that people aren't stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You make a reallllly big assumption here: that people aren't stupid. 722268[/snapback] We've been down this road before. The main reason I'm against totally voluntary contributions is that there are more stupid people than not. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Doubt it. 722101[/snapback] There are some twinkies in it for you if you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 We've been down this road before. The main reason I'm against totally voluntary contributions is that there are more stupid people than not. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) 722277[/snapback] That depends on how much freedom you give people to invest in those private accounts. If you let them choose individual stocks, then sure, a lot will put all their savings into the next Enron. But if their choices are "small cap index fund" "large cap index fund" "investment grade bond index fund" and the like, there's only so much pain people will suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 That depends on how much freedom you give people to invest in those private accounts. If you let them choose individual stocks, then sure, a lot will put all their savings into the next Enron. But if their choices are "small cap index fund" "large cap index fund" "investment grade bond index fund" and the like, there's only so much pain people will suffer. 722289[/snapback] Now that is really funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 My ultimate fear is that SS benefits will be based on how much you have in personal retirement accounts. Those with nothing: full benefits. Those with plenty: nothing. It's the American way right? Punish the people who have worked hard and planned and reward the slackers. 711286[/snapback] You can see examples of people like this everywhere. I know quite a few people with very strong incomes for 20+ years running (maybe top 8-10% each and every year) that have zippo for net worth. Boats, cars, pools, too big a house all on credit and voila, no savings. Others make almost identical incomes and forego some/all of the lavish lifestyle and end up pretty well off. Why should the two groups have any difference in retirement benefit eligibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 We've been down this road before. The main reason I'm against totally voluntary contributions is that there are more stupid people than not. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) 722277[/snapback] They have an option to change back to SS at any time. They could even mix and match. One year to private accounts. Another year, SS. It is all in the little checkbox on the W-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 You make a reallllly big assumption here: that people aren't stupid. 722268[/snapback] No plan is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 There are some twinkies in it for you if you do... 722279[/snapback] Well, if there are twinkies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 They have an option to change back to SS at any time. They could even mix and match. One year to private accounts. Another year, SS. It is all in the little checkbox on the W-2. 722363[/snapback] Of course they could, and that would be the logical thing to do. I just have this hunch that there may be a few folks wading into the muck after a 3-year stock losing cycle making a push to "equalize" everyone's benefits. Forget the hunch, look at what Spitzer is doing to HR Block for daring to get people hooked on personal savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 We've been down this road before. Therefore, when they choose private accounts but will inevitably not earn as much as they thought they should earn, they'll simply vote in folks into Congress who will "restore" their benefits. (See the UK) 722277[/snapback] Maybe I am misunderstanding, U.K. had private retirement accounts and because of whining they switched it back to gov't controll? Reason I ask, is an englishman just stated that the uk gov't has ss and healthcare since wwII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts