So combining my dim memory of an article with these, I get something like this:
Current SS payment: $5000/month Progressive price indexing applies across the board. So under the new system, that payment may be cut to $2000/month. So: No private accounts: $2000/month SS Private account: $2000/month SS + $3000 investment value. Or maybe the private account will be paid for out of how much is left from the new progressive indexed price, so it will look like: Private account: $1000/month SS + $1000 investment value Either way there's a cut. (I'm washing out the President's statement that people would make more either way under the new system since the old system would benefit from the same scheduled adjustments.) -Kevin On 7/14/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "The cuts in scheduled benefits that are termed "progressive price > indexing" apply to beneficiaries regardless of whether or not they opt > to have a private account. In addition, people who choose to have a > private account are subject to a second cut in their guaranteed > benefits in order to pay for it. The President attempted to underplay > the nature of the cuts that would apply to everyone, saying "Americans > who choose not to save in a personal account will still be able to > count on a Social Security check equal or higher than the benefits of > today's seniors." This is a misleading statement because under the > current rules, the benefits of future retirees are already scheduled > to be much higher than benefits of today's seniors due to wage > indexing as explained above. Even if your initial benefit was subject > entirely to price indexing (which would be a drastic cut compared to > scheduled benefits under current law) you would have a greater benefit > in nominal dollars (not adjusted for inflation) than today's seniors. > " > http://www.policyalmanac.org/elists/viewtopic.php?t=207 > > "Those who do not opt for a personal retirement account would continue > to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed > to be permanently sustainable." > http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=5159 > > Note the "reformed to the permanently sustainable" clause. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164792 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
