Who hasn't worked for 30 years since the start of SS? Also, the best privitation plans I've seen make provisions for people who are able to save less than what would provide them with a minimum retirement income -- nobody would, unless they so choose, would be out in the street.
H. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- from: "BethF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:01:39 -0900 >I believe that our state employees have "opted out" of SS. How have they >done this? > >The reason we have SS, though, is to help the folks that might not have >worked 30 years - so they dont' starve when they are 70. > >--Beth, Pseudo usenet cop >Merlin MTB, BikeE AT, RANS gliss, Trek R200, Kickbike >Owned by Kavik (Samoyed Boy) and Toklat (Keeshond Boy) >Anchorage, Alaska > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM >Subject: RE: Nukes > > >> If you had been working for the last 30 years and putting the same amount >of >> money into a privatized, diversified account, instead of SS, you would >have >> several times more money coming to you upon retirement than you'll ever >get >> from SS. And your heirs can reap the benefits of your account upon your >> death. With SS, they get nothing. >> >> H. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Braver, Ben [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:19 AM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: Nukes >> >> >> H.- >> y'mean private accounts like NASDAQ mutual funds or ENRON stock, so they >can >> watch the bottom drop out and their retirement vanish like smoke? >> -Ben >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:50 PM >> > To: CF-Community >> > Subject: RE: Nukes >> > >> > >> > Fiscally irresponsible is forcing people to deposit money into social >> > security instead of putting it in private accounts. >> > >> > H. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:39 AM >> > To: CF-Community >> > Subject: Re: Nukes >> > >> > >> > Fiscally irresponsible is giving tax refunds based on a >> > surplus that no >> > longer exists. Fiscally irresponsible is not paying down >> > the debt (if you consider the national debt then there really wasn't a >> > surplus at all to begin with). Fiscally irresponsible is >> > gambling with Social Security... >> > >> > Howie >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Michael Corrigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:30 PM >> > Subject: Re: Nukes >> > >> > >> > > What? How is taking money out of the federal government fiscally >> > irresponsible? Again, that makes no sense! What IS fiscally >> > irresponsible is spending more money then the government >> > takes in! Congress >> > has NO fiscal discipline whatsoever! I've read reports >> > where up to 50 cents on the dollar is wasted and that has not >> > a damned thing >> > to do with tax cuts. And supporting lower taxes and >> > smaller government does not make one simple-minded. >> > > >> > > Michael Corrigan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
