On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:59:12 -0600 (CST), Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote: > > > The route to real pensions reform > > Jan 6th 2005 > > >From The Economist print edition > > > > http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3535838 > > > <most snipped> > > The third and best answer is progressive indexing. This means the > > continuation of wage indexing for all workers with average career > > earnings of $25,000 or less. It also means not touching the benefit > > formulas of anyone already in or near retirement (workers aged over 55 > > today). Conversely, the initial benefits of all workers with average > > career earnings above $113,000 retiring after 2011 would be increased by > > price indexing. Almost all these workers receive significant amounts of > > retirement income from company plans and other savings vehicles in > > addition to Social Security. The initial benefits of workers falling > > between these two groups would be increased by a proportional blend of > > wage and price indexing. > > I like this option. > > Julia
I am afraid I see little unexpected from a high level Republican with connections to the banking and mutual fund industry. BTW, this proposal affects workers under 55. Erik's and other's comments that no one who has contributed to SS will be effected is total BS as even the briefest look at the numbers or or logic shows. Even after figuring new stock plans into the mix recipients start receiving less in retirement benefits as soon as the first included group hits eligibility age. Under most proposals that is 2011 to 2015. Gary Denton http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
