On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:23:20 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 12:01:56PM -0600, Gary Denton wrote: > > > For example, if the "price indexing" change is made, "a retiree in > > 2075 would receive 54 percent of the benefits now promised." > > No. A retiree in 2075 is just being born today or just a few years old > at the most. Such a person has not been promised anything. Only people > who pay into social security have an implied promise of benefits.
Semantics - currently projected using current calculations of benefits. > > > If this system had been in place since Social Security's inception, > > people today would be retiring with a benefit tied to the living > > standard of the 1930s, when 40 percent of households lacked indoor > > plumbing. > > Straw man. Today the standard of living is quite comfortable. They are > talking about indexing it to TODAY's standard of living, not 1930's. How is this a straw man? Your proposal promises people their future benefits will increase at a rate to buy a quantity of goods that is decades obsolete. > > THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET OF PRIVATIZATION: Bush's plan for private > > accounts is being sold as a plan for younger workers to benefit from > > the higher returns of the stock market. Don't believe the hype. > > The dirty little secret of this shrill rant is that SOMEBODY has to > pay, no matter what you do. These bozos pretend that people are somehow > entitled to live like kings and that nobody has to pay for it. Don't > believe the hype. If you think that people on Soc. Sec. are living like Kings.... > You can pay more in taxes now (and force future generations to pay > more in taxes later) and let the government mishandle your retirement > savings, or you can pay less in taxes now, and save for retirement > yourself. Or you can stick the government into the stock market investment business in collaboration with Merrill Lynch and let Enron economics provide for your future. Somehow this seems to remove the word Security from SS. SS is an old age poverty prevention plan that has some flaws but has worked and has the lowest administration costs of any similar system on the planet. There are ways to let you save for retirement yourself that keep SS for the purpose it was intended. Look at what has happened in Sweden, UK, and other countries that have switched to old age investment plans. Returns have plummeted, the governments are having to step in reinstating the Security portion to reinstate minimum benefits and transaction costs are much higher, about 20% in the UK, compared to less than 1% with our current system. > > The government shouldn't be in the business of providing a complete > retirement plan. The old age insurance portion of Social Security is a > SAFETY NET -- it should guarantee a minimum level for people who can't > or don't save enough to support themselves in their old age. It should > NOT be expected to provide most or all of the retirement savings for > most people. OK > > The current standard of living is more than sufficient to provide > as a minimum level. Indexing to current cost of living is perfectly > reasonable. Then you have the government deciding what the current COLA is like in Medicare. In Medicare they now have the COLA adjusted down below inflation when for Senior Citizens with higher health costs it is higher. > > > explains: "The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are obligations > > of the federal government's general fund, the budget outside Social > > Security. They have the same status as U.S. bonds owned by Japanese > > pension funds and the government of China. > > Not quite. SS's bonds cannot be sold on the bond market. That means > their value cannot be as accurately measured, since there is no market > for them. You don't have to estimate their value, they just have to be paid back by the full faith and credit of the federal government like any other bonds. > > > The general fund is legally obliged to pay the interest and principal > > on those bonds, and Social Security is legally obliged to pay full > > benefits as long as there is money in the trust fund." > > No doubt it will be paid. But how? Answer: by raising taxes, borrowing > more money (thus pushing up interest rates) or starting up the printing > press. All ways, you slow the economy. Not that the problem can be > blamed entirely on SS (Bush should have been cutting spending along with > his tax cuts), but SS will exacerbate the problem. Bad times are ahead. Since Bush came in office terrible times are ahead. Bush's high-end income tax cuts are three time the indebtedness of the SS shortfall. The unnecessary Iraq War has is an underestimated $200 billion in borrowed dollars he has no intention of repaying. Why do you trust him with your money not to mention mine? Gary D. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
