|
Why Liberals Abhor Social Security Reform (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
Lefties always ignore that this plan is 100% O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L! You can choose to divert 4% of your SS taxes into a personal account, OR YOU CAN STAY WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM! This hysterical reaction we see on the left over just giving people the OPTION to invest a FRACTION of their earnings in a personal account is just amazing. We are talking about letting people keep an extra four lousy percent of their money...FOUR PERCENT! The left is really showing their contempt for workers in America by opposing this plan.
The truth is, lefties absolutely hate the idea of sacrificing government power and giving individuals just a little more control their own lives. Socialism/liberalism thrives on misery and dependancy. Successful, prosperous, and independent citizens will have absolutely no need for poverty pimps on the left to step in and save them. Democrats know that if people are able to comfortably retire with a real nest egg, they stand to lose a huge voting bloc of seniors dependent on them for monthly checks. Prosperity and widespread ownership of wealth in America will mean the death of the democratic party, and the end of their socialist dreams. This is why they are so rabid in opposing the plan. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What you are seemingly wanting is for folks to divert this safety net to the stock market (which are ironically going to be under some governmental influence if Bush has his way). Bottom line is it is, indeed, a gamble - some winners and some losers. Or what's worse, people retiring during a market crash or serious downturn like a few years back. |
I hear what you're saying, but I think the investment options would be pretty conservative and much more diverse than just checking a box to put all 4% in Enron. Like I said, there is risk, but with risk comes the opportunity for a bigger piece of pie when you retire. You could lose, but I think the proposals would most likely be conservative enough that you wouldn't do too poorly. Not to mention that on a longer time span, most investments don't the bed. If a person is nearing retirement, every financial advisor in the country would tell them to put their money in much more conservative, lower yielding funds to preserve the capital they have accumulated. It would take an element of recklessness for a near retiree to try to throw their money down the drain for a few more bucks when they're that close to the finish line.
Don't worry, I'll probably have the lowest return of anyone on my personal account(provided some sort of legislation passes). But at least it will be in my control and I will have nobody to blame but myself if I it up. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| There is one good thing about this debate...Even if Bush's social security plan fails, left wing authortarianism is now in full bloom available for all to see. This will cost the dems dearly in the 2006/2008 elections. :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Lefties always ignore that this plan is 100% O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L! You can choose to divert 4% of your SS taxes into a personal account, OR YOU CAN STAY WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM! This hysterical reaction we see on the left over just giving people the OPTION to invest a FRACTION of their earnings in a personal account is just amazing. We are talking about letting people keep an extra four lousy percent of their money...FOUR PERCENT! The rabid left is really showing their contempt for workers in America by opposing this plan. |
I am not contending that the program is O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L, dear Capitalizt. I am directly attacking how Bush plans to fund his scheme. You must keep in mind that even with this O-P-T-I-O-N, Bush will consequently have to fund BOTH programs. Hence the transition costs of $1-2 trillion, as well as the CBO projections of $15 trillion over 40 years. We have to cover both folks who either choose the O-P-T-I-O-N, or choose the government SS program.
Unless, of course, you're conceding that Bush doesn't want to cover both?
| quote: | | The truth is...the left absolutely hates the idea of sacrificing government power and giving individuals just a little more control their own lives. Socialism/liberalism thrives on misery and dependancy. |
Spare me your labelling bull. Either directly address my points or admit you have no argument at all.
| quote: | | Successful, prosperous, and independent Americans will have absolutely no need for poverty pimps on the left to step in and save them. |
Cute. You still seem to stick to your bull generalizations, rather than directly address my arguments. Please try from now on.
| quote: | | Democrats know that if people are able to comfortably retire with a real nest egg, they lose a huge voting bloc of senior citizens dependent on them for monthly checks. Prosperity and widespread ownership of wealth in America will mean the death of the democratic party, and the end of their socialist dreams. This is why they oppose the plan. |
There's plenty of prosperous Dems, sir. Surely you've heard of that devil, George Soros?
And spare me your bull rhetoric about "prosperity". Whether you like it or not, prosperity occurs more under DEMOCRATIC presidents:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/mar...tion_demsvreps/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer
http://www.americanprogressaction.o...WJcP7H&b=130896
Seems we tend to know how to handle money a bit better than you.
You think Bush knows more about prosperity? Then tell your ing president to stop putting this fiscal burden on our children with his ing deficit HE created.
| quote: | | Even if Bush's social security plan fails, left wing authortarianism is now in full bloom, available for all to see. And this will cost them in the next elections. |
I love cute future projections like this. They do nothing to address current assertions in any way. It's like the kid who just got his clock cleaned and runs off saying, "you'll be sorry you did that!". If anything, analysts are predicting that this SS idea will hurt the Republicans more than the Dems. There's plenty of Republicans who are cowering away from Bush's ideas as a result of their '06 elections. Surely if they supported it so much they would stand in lockstep with his plan regardless of their political aspirations.
Why are they cowering, sir? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Opus, I can't pretend that I like Bush's deficits. In an ideal world, we would have a government bound by the Constitution, with very limited functions, requiring very limited resources. Unfortunately we don't have this now, and government spending has been growing out of control for decades, averaging 10%+ a year since Reagan left office.
Unfortunately big deficits may be the only way to ultimately get government spending under control. When politicians finally decide to confront the problem, they will only have two options...dramatically increase taxes (political death), or dramatically reduce spending on entitlements, corporate welfare, and other direct (and unconstitutional) wealth transfers enjoyed by few. Given that every American pays taxes, and only a fraction receive direct transfer payments, spending cuts are the only way to resolve the problem. It won't be fun, especially for bureaucrats who make a living sucking the tit of the welfare state...but in an indirect way, Bush has finally discovered how to starve the beast.
His social security proposal is not intended to destroy social security however, but to transform it into something new. When people have real savings with real assets (stocks, bonds, cash, etc), not only does it benefit the economy...creating more jobs and enabling more people to succeed, but it also gives everyone a stake in America. When everyone owns a piece of the economy, they will have an active interest in keeping it strong. This makes it much less likely that they will support the pro tax, pro regulation, anti-business attitudes found by the left. Every American who owns a piece of corporate America will find socialist policies very unappealing. The left will no longer be hurting "the rich"...or "the greedy" on wall street when they propose more government activism. Their philosphy will be hurting ALL AMERICANS...and Americans won't like that very much.
This is just my little theory...on what I beleive is the ultimate goal of social security reform.. If Bush succeeds, he will fundamentally change the attitudes Americans have towards the role of government.
And this will be the deathblow to world socialism. :toocool: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Opus, I can't pretend that I like Bush's deficits. In an ideal world, we would have a government bound by the Constitution, with very limited functions, requiring very limited resources. Unfortunately we don't have this now, and government spending has been growing out of control for decades, averaging 10%+ a year since Reagan left office.
Unfortunately big deficits may be the only way to ultimately get government spending under control. When politicians finally decide to confront the problem, they will only have two options...dramatically increase taxes (political death), or dramatically reduce spending on entitlements, corporate welfare, and other direct (and unconstitutional) wealth transfers enjoyed by few. Given that every American pays taxes, and only a fraction receive direct transfer payments, spending cuts are the only way to resolve the problem. It won't be fun, especially for bureaucrats who make a living sucking the tit of the welfare state...but in an indirect way, Bush has finally discovered how to starve the beast.
His social security proposal is not intended to destroy social security however, but to transform it into something new. When people have real savings with real assets (stocks, bonds, cash, etc), not only does it benefit the economy...creating more jobs and enabling more people to succeed, but it also gives everyone a stake in America. When everyone owns a piece of the economy, they will have an active interest in keeping it strong. This makes it much less likely that they will support the pro tax, pro regulation, anti-business attitudes found by the left. Every American who owns a piece of corporate America will find socialist policies very unappealing. The left will no longer be hurting "the rich"...or "the greedy" on wall street when they propose more government activism. Their philosphy will be hurting ALL AMERICANS...and Americans won't like that very much.
This is just my little theory...on what I beleive is the ultimate goal of social security reform.. If Bush succeeds, he will fundamentally change the attitudes Americans have towards the role of government.
And this will be the deathblow to world socialism. :toocool: |
Well I do appreciate the toning down the rhetoric a bit. Thank you.
I too understand the idea behind deficits, and that at times they are necessitated by a number of factors. I too also understand that when deficits are created they must be addressed by cutting spending and/or increasing taxes. But let's take Bush's budget proposal, for example. Even with all the slashing of the proposed 150 programs, his budget still puts us further into the red. At most his slashing of programs, some which I contend are outright ridiculous to cut, would only be about 6% of the deficit. Contrast that to his tax cuts being approx. 48% of the deficit here:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=242694
But what we're seeing here and what you are seemingly conceding to is a DELIBERATE action of creating deficits in order to have the excuse to cut government programs. "Starving the beast" as one conservative economist put it. How could anyone not see this as draconian?
If there are better ideas out there to fund and run certain government programs, i.e. privatizing programs, great. But it must not come at the expense of literally ing the public frontways and sideways. This is, in effect, what Bush's SS scheme will do, and I cannot support such a measure - not because I tend to view things from the Left, but because it's not fiscally responsible at all.
Even Greenspan, whom I think has been a pretty big hack as of late, is conceding that our deficit needs to be addressed NOW:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ed_greenspan_dc
It's not so much that it's huge historically as a % of GDP, which clearly was much more in the '80's. It also has to do with the sliding $ and our appearance as creditors to other countries worldwide. Just recently S. Korea is refusing to buy more American dollars, and decided to invest in other currencies instead:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Feb22.html
We cannot afford this deficit and trade debt, which was reported to be even bigger last month. THIS is our problem. This is what needs to be addressed first. We address this first, then we can move on to the question of how efficient certain government programs truly are right now. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I hear what you're saying, but I think the investment options would be pretty conservative and much more diverse than just checking a box to put all 4% in Enron. Like I said, there is risk, but with risk comes the opportunity for a bigger piece of pie when you retire. You could lose, but I think the proposals would most likely be conservative enough that you wouldn't do too poorly. Not to mention that on a longer time span, most investments don't the bed. If a person is nearing retirement, every financial advisor in the country would tell them to put their money in much more conservative, lower yielding funds to preserve the capital they have accumulated. It would take an element of recklessness for a near retiree to try to throw their money down the drain for a few more bucks when they're that close to the finish line.
Don't worry, I'll probably have the lowest return of anyone on my personal account(provided some sort of legislation passes). But at least it will be in my control and I will have nobody to blame but myself if I it up. |
Running out of time now, so I'll try to keep this short. My JHawks are about to play here at Kemper Arena, and I've got a good seat to see 'em!
In regards to how well these government-controlled private accounts will do, I have two snippets. The first is just opinion, but the author makes a cogent, political point:
| quote: | The idea of personal accounts is that Wall Street should triumph over the welfare state. Just the opposite might occur: The welfare state would triumph over Wall Street. The money flowing into personal accounts would not be invested according to the "free market." Individuals wouldn't have the freedom to invest in Microsoft, General Electric or eBay. Instead, it would be invested according to rules made by Congress, influenced by politics. There would be unrelenting pressure from interest groups, "experts" and public opinion.
The danger is that investment decisions would become unduly politicized and that the economy would consequently suffer. The rules governing which stocks could or couldn't be purchased for personal accounts might become irrational or counterproductive. The reason is that what personal accounts aim to accomplish is inherently difficult, perhaps impossible. The economic and social roles of Wall Street and the welfare state are fundamentally opposed. The attempt to blend them through personal accounts would create massive contradictions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Mar10.html |
This is an analysis by epinet.org (admittedly a left-wing economic think tank) about the possible administrative costs of privatization under Bush's plan:
| quote: | There are five types of new administrative costs associated with privatization: fees to manage the accounts, fees to convert private account balances into lifetime annuities, supplemental insurance costs, costs related to new government infrastructure, and costs associated with new employer activities. These costs will be paid directly by the government, employers, or workers—but in the end the American public will pay the price of privatization in the form of higher taxes, lower wages, fewer government services, or higher fees that erode the balances of the private accounts.
Management fees. A new system of private accounts will require significant administrative activities, such as collecting and processing contributions, managing the funds, paying benefits, overseeing and enforcing the accounts, and possibly marketing and sales (if the program is decentralized). The financial service industry has been in favor of private accounts because Wall Street can make huge brokerage fees on the billions of dollars that will be invested in private accounts. A University of Chicago economics professor has estimated that the net present value of payments of financial fees to private companies would be $940 billion over 75 years, the largest windfall gain in American financial history. (Austan Goolsbee, The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers, September 2004). The Securities Industries Association, in whose interest it is to minimize the fees it says it will collect, has estimated that the financial industry would make just $39 billion over 75 years. (Heidi Przybyla, Companies to Spend Over $5 Million To Back Bush on Social Security in Bloomberg News, January 20, 2005).
Management fees add up over the life of an individual's account. The CBO estimates that the administrative costs under the current Social Security system reduce a worker's account asset balance by only 2% at retirement. For example, the CBO estimates that the average annual administrative cost of a mutual fund that received 2% of taxable earnings is 1.09%, and would result in a 23% reduction in a worker's account assets at retirement. (CBO, Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security, March 2004).
Fees to convert private account to lifetime annuity. Plan 2 assumes retirees will convert their private accounts into annuities that provide them with monthly payments until their death. This is yet another cost that will reduce a worker's private account balance. Relatively few people buy these annuities now, so it is unclear how expensive they will be. Some have estimated that, even after paying management fees for the life of the private account, individuals will face an additional cost equal to 15% to 20% of their entire account to create a lifetime annuity. (Dean Baker and David Rosnick of CEPR, Basic Facts on Social Security and Proposed Benefit Cuts/Privatization, November 2004; CBO, Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security, March 2004). A study panel convened by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) released a report in January 2005 that details all the unanswered questions associated with handing out benefits through private accounts. The report addresses many issues, including how annuities could be structured and whether the government or the private sector should provide them. (Study Panel Final Report, NASI, Uncharted Waters: Paying Benefits from Individual Accounts in Federal Retirement Policy, 2005).
Potential fees to provide supplemental insurance benefits. Only half of new Social Security beneficiaries are retired workers. The other half are family members of retired workers, disabled workers and their families, and workers' survivors. Private accounts are scheduled to cover only the benefits to the retired workers. Under Plan 2, Social Security will continue to provide a widow and spousal benefit, but those benefits are likely to be at a lower level than before. How will the workers' entire family continue to be protected in the case of early death or disability? A possible scenario would be to make workers purchase an insurance product to cover the dramatic loss in disability and survivors' benefits. This additional cost would drastically reduce a worker's return on their account.
New government infrastructure. Privatization will require the U.S. government to undertake a number of expansive, new activities and will result in new government bureaucracies. First, the government will directly or indirectly have to track each worker's payroll taxes and ensure they are deposited in the proper accounts, in a timely manner, and invested in the options a worker chooses. Second, new accounts and accounts with small balances are not profitable for financial service companies that charge fees as a percent of the account balance. Administration officials have indicated that the government would manage new accounts and small accounts with balances under $5,000 because financial companies would not be interested. (Edmund Andrews, Wall Street Hears Pitch for Social Security Plan, in The New York Times, January 11, 2005). Third, the government will need to set up an agency that monitors the private financial companies that administer the private accounts and/or provide annuities. The cost of running a new public agency that would not replace the current Social Security Administration but would oversee the system of private accounts (i.e., an agency like the Securities and Exchange Commission) is between 62% and 400% of the costs of running the U.S. Social Security system. (Dean Baker and Debayani Kar of CEPR, Defined Contributions from Workers, Guaranteed Benefits for Bankers: The World Bank's Approach to Social Security Reform, July 2002). These costs have to be passed on to workers, either in higher administrative costs for their private accounts, or in higher taxes.
Employer costs. Privatization may also require employers to take on a number of new activities that will be costly, particularly to smaller employers. The extent of these new responsibilities will vary depending on whether there is centralized, governmental administration of the program (for example, using existing structures at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service), or decentralized, employer-based administration and record keeping. To the extent that administration is decentralized, new employer activities might include depositing contributions with financial institutions, educating employees about the private accounts, taking on new fiduciary responsibilities, and monitoring and correcting errors. In addition, the Congressional Research Service notes that, as a result of these new costs, employers may shrink their pension sponsorship or cut back on their matches in current 401(k) plans, which might decrease employee participation in those plans. (Memo from Patrick Purcell, Congressional Research Service re: Social Security Individual Accounts and Private Pensions, March 2004).
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/i...urityprivfaq#42 |
Links are provided in that website. Let's keep in mind that they are following Plan 2 under the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security in December 2001, which is what Bush is currently touting:
http://www.csss.gov/ |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Running out of time now, so I'll try to keep this short. My JHawks are about to play here at Kemper Arena, and I've got a good seat to see 'em! |
Go Jayhawks,then! My Dores will be lucky to see any NCAA action this year. A real heartbreaker last night.
| quote: | | This is an analysis by epinet.org (admittedly a left-wing economic think tank) about the possible administrative costs of privatization under Bush's plan: |
Then their analysis should provide a worst-case scenario;)
| quote: | | Management fees. A new system of private accounts will require significant administrative activities, such as collecting and processing contributions, managing the funds, paying benefits, overseeing and enforcing the accounts, and possibly marketing and sales (if the program is decentralized). The financial service industry has been in favor of private accounts because Wall Street can make huge brokerage fees on the billions of dollars that will be invested in private accounts. A University of Chicago economics professor has estimated that the net present value of payments of financial fees to private companies would be $940 billion over 75 years, the largest windfall gain in American financial history. (Austan Goolsbee, The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers, September 2004). The Securities Industries Association, in whose interest it is to minimize the fees it says it will collect, has estimated that the financial industry would make just $39 billion over 75 years. (Heidi Przybyla, Companies to Spend Over $5 Million To Back Bush on Social Security in Bloomberg News, January 20, 2005). |
Wowzers--just like a mutual fund! Oh wait, that's right--Bush's plan would offer mutual funds to people, only my understanding is that the management fees on government sponsored funds would be significantly lower than that of the average mutual fund, which is typically in the 1-2% range. Hey, the people who manage, maintain, and keep the records for the accounts(they don't run themselves ya know) have to get paid.
In fact, in that statement alone, hasn't this liberal think tank essentially dressed up a sheep in wolves clothing? Notice that they're more interested in telling you how much money someone is going to make for managing your money than in telling you how much more you might potentially earn on your assets. Furthermore, are they trying to say that there are no employees getting paid to work for the Social Security Office?
| quote: | | Management fees add up over the life of an individual's account. The CBO estimates that the administrative costs under the current Social Security system reduce a worker's account asset balance by only 2% at retirement. For example, the CBO estimates that the average annual administrative cost of a mutual fund that received 2% of taxable earnings is 1.09%, and would result in a 23% reduction in a worker's account assets at retirement. (CBO, Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security, March 2004). |
As far as the first part of this statement goes, they've basically said, and let me paraphrase, "Of all of the mutual funds that only had a 2% return, the average management fee was 1.09%". Well golly gee, funny they didn't mention the thousands of other funds out there that vastly different returns(bad or good). Seriously, alls I'm saying is that is a distinctly deceptive sentence. Furthermore, the latter part about the 23% reduction doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but of course, they've only posed a hypothetical based on a deceptive sentence, but I digress.
| quote: | | Fees to convert private account to lifetime annuity. Plan 2 assumes retirees will convert their private accounts into annuities that provide them with monthly payments until their death. This is yet another cost that will reduce a worker's private account balance. Relatively few people buy these annuities now, so it is unclear how expensive they will be. Some have estimated that, even after paying management fees for the life of the private account, individuals will face an additional cost equal to 15% to 20% of their entire account to create a lifetime annuity. (Dean Baker and David Rosnick of CEPR, Basic Facts on Social Security and Proposed Benefit Cuts/Privatization, November 2004; CBO, Administrative Costs of Private Accounts in Social Security, March 2004). A study panel convened by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) released a report in January 2005 that details all the unanswered questions associated with handing out benefits through private accounts. The report addresses many issues, including how annuities could be structured and whether the government or the private sector should provide them. (Study Panel Final Report, NASI, Uncharted Waters: Paying Benefits from Individual Accounts in Federal Retirement Policy, 2005). |
I dunno about this one. The writers admit that they have no idea how expensive it will be, and I imagine they then go on to give a "worst case scenario" sort of hypothetical. Sure there will be certain costs involved. If you want to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs. I believe the theory is that if you can make a smooth transition, the long-term benefits(think generations to come) will far outweigh the upfront "load" to use a mutual fund term.
| quote: | | Potential fees to provide supplemental insurance benefits. Only half of new Social Security beneficiaries are retired workers. The other half are family members of retired workers, disabled workers and their families, and workers' survivors. Private accounts are scheduled to cover only the benefits to the retired workers. Under Plan 2, Social Security will continue to provide a widow and spousal benefit, but those benefits are likely to be at a lower level than before. How will the workers' entire family continue to be protected in the case of early death or disability? A possible scenario would be to make workers purchase an insurance product to cover the dramatic loss in disability and survivors' benefits. This additional cost would drastically reduce a worker's return on their account. |
Well, now we're into "Potential Fees". I could think of a ton of other potential fees. With nothing in concrete, have these guys considered the possibilty of a Plan 3 or 4, or even 8? There are plenty of ideas on the table, and plenty reason to believe that someone might think of an innovative alternative that hasn't been considered yet. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
| quote: | | New government infrastructure. Privatization will require the U.S. government to undertake a number of expansive, new activities and will result in new government bureaucracies. First, the government will directly or indirectly have to track each worker's payroll taxes and ensure they are deposited in the proper accounts, in a timely manner, and invested in the options a worker chooses. |
Yes, but won't it also involve the phasing out of Old infrastructure over time? Perhaps a new one would be less beaurocratic since it will be new. Perhaps it won't be as corrupt as some current government systems. Perhaps it will. Nobody can know. I admittedly do not want more or bigger government by any stretch, and this may just be a cleverly worded statement to create the illusion that this would create massively bigger governemtn. And perhaps not.
| quote: | | Second, new accounts and accounts with small balances are not profitable for financial service companies that charge fees as a percent of the account balance. |
Certainly not on an individual basis, but in large volumes, you're still talking about a percentage of a pie, so does this argument really matter? Besides, I don't think a financial service company would have the option of turning them down. Either way, don't liberals like to see the "white collar financial services guy" struggle to make a living?;)
| quote: | | Employer costs. Privatization may also require employers to take on a number of new activities that will be costly, particularly to smaller employers. The extent of these new responsibilities will vary depending on whether there is centralized, governmental administration of the program (for example, using existing structures at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service), or decentralized, employer-based administration and record keeping. To the extent that administration is decentralized, new employer activities might include depositing contributions with financial institutions, educating employees about the private accounts, taking on new fiduciary responsibilities, and monitoring and correcting errors. |
Business costs money to stay in business. If they could quantify it on an individual level, I bet it's really not that much, but admittedly I don't know. All they've said is that it will cost money to run the program. I don't know that it's clear yet how much of this kind of expense a company would have to eat and how much might be subsidized by Uncle Sam.
| quote: | | In addition, the Congressional Research Service notes that, as a result of these new costs, employers may shrink their pension sponsorship or cut back on their matches in current 401(k) plans, which might decrease employee participation in those plans. (Memo from Patrick Purcell, Congressional Research Service re: Social Security Individual Accounts and Private Pensions, March 2004). |
Sure, it's possible. It's not like companies are required by law to offer a 401(k). Then again, if businesses are competing for labor, they might not be inclined to improve their relative attractiveness to potential employees by maintaining a solid benefits package, else they might miss out on the most productive workers. Then again, they may just say it and throw the dice.
I guess it's about what I expected. Try to present the worst possible outcome and let fear do the rest.;)
Seriously, of course there are going to be costs in creating something like we're talking about. I doubt I like that fact anymore than the next person, but in the end I just think it's a really good idea that could really benefit us all significantly down the road. I would like to see something like it put in place, provided it is well thought out and properly managed.
How's that for an Opus-like reply? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
The government shouldn't have ever gotten involved with people's retirement savings to begin with, but now that it has I'm not sure there are any equitable ways to terminate the program (so perhaps it's time to start looking into inequitable ones).
Reform? Bah. There's only so much you can do with a steaming pile of crap to try to make it more agreeable. Bush's plan just flushes more cash down the ter while he leaves it to someone else to foot the bill. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The government shouldn't have ever gotten involved with people's retirement savings to begin with, but now that it has I'm not sure there are any equitable ways to terminate the program (so perhaps it's time to start looking into inequitable ones).
|
Exactly.
It's a Ponzi scheme that quickly reaching it's end.
Forcing people to actually take care of their own finances is not a bad thing; in fact, according to credit statistics, the people could use the education since it's quite obvious there are a LOT of people out there that don't even know basic personal finance.
There's no way you'd ever convince me that the government will take of me in my 'golden' years.
I realize I'm speaking on the other side of the fence but our system up here isn't that much better, hence I'm watching very intently... |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come, funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.--FDR in a message to congress. 1-17-35 |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. I will try not to. I don't have a vendetta against you and I'm certainly not angry. I apologize if you took it that way. I like that you play rugby. What position do you play? My best man was a rugby fanatic in college.;) |
It's cool. I play lock. The new PS2 game just got releasedin America too! |
|
|
|
|
