CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by brapple:
it is known that social security is going to be privatized now, this means we have to deal with a corporation to get our social security when we turn 60, now with this we are not going get near the amount that previous generations have had
Really? Have you ever actually sat down and done the math on the pitiful rate of return that the current soc-sec system gives for the 15% that is contributed from your paycheck over 30+ years of working? If you knew anything about business finance you'd be jumping for joy over the opportunity to not have the government bureaucracy rob your money from you to pay for CURRENT retirees, which the system was NEVER originally designed for. The monies were originally supposed to be put aside in interest bearing accounts and it was illegal to borrow against the soc-sec funds. New laws have since allowed multiple administrations (both dems and reps) to rob the soc-sec systems funds because our noble gov't representatives just can't keep their paws off of money that is just sitting there "for no good reason" when there are SO many social problems in the U.S. that "need" to be solved. If the trust hadn't been robbed repeatedly over time, it would not be in the venerable position it is today. This is proof that any gov't institution is not the place to trust our monies.
Do corporations own 401k, 403b, Keogh plans? No. YOU do. They host them yes, but YOU OWN THEM. They cannot touch that money for any reason, all they do is money transfers from your paycheck to such accounts.
The idea that gov't ownership trumps individual ownership really escapes me. Why do you believe that a gov't run soc-sec system is better than individual ownership? Look at Chile's soc-sec program, which is really what Bush is modeling after, it's one of the most successful implementations of forced retirement on the planet, and it's entirely individually owned and operated, the only thing the gov't does is force each person to save 7% of their income that they manage (with limits via a framework).
Quote:
so we will have to work more to get the same amount or just live poorer then we could have to retain the same amounts of social security
Nice statement, not true, but you can believe what you want. Let's give a little example here. Every year I contribute about 5k into the soc-sec system. This is matched by my employer, so another 5k. So, every year, 10k is invested into soc-sec on my behalf. If I were to take that same 10k per year, and throw it into interest bearing or investment accounts at 8% per year over 30 years, it would (833/month compounded monthly over 30 years), yields 1,250,000 dollars. Most banks will yield at LEAST 5% on a sum of money like that, so I could withdraw, without touching the principle amount, 62,500 per year of revenue, or over 5k per month of retirement monies. Soc-sec in future dollars will pay me about 2500 per month in comparison according to the many financial calculators on the internet.
This is because the current soc-sec system is robbing Peter to pay Paul, i.e. because of gov't corruption, my monies are paying for current retirees, not earning interest in trusts that gov't reps can't get to. Individual ownership of accounts is where it's at, no question in my mind. Yes, we will have to design a cutover of some kind, to continue to pay those people on the existing system, but I believe that we need a serious change to the existing soc-sec system, and Bush is taking the right steps in this regard.
Last edited by cjbaldw; 11/03/04 03:38 PM.
|
