Yes Cameron, if SS was a retirement plan, privatization might be a good idea. Unfortunately, like I said before, SS is a tax to fund a social program. Therefore giving people the ability to invest "their" contributions isn't a great idea. What would be the impetus to invest correctly when you're not guaranteed the money you are putting in right now. There is not a separate account labeled 'Cameron Childress" at the big bank of Washington. What is there, a database entry stating you've contributed $xxxx amount of dollars. What will be done with that, wait 20 or 30 years and then we'll be able to say. Maybe you'll get some money, maybe you won't.
Therefore this argument for privatization is a moot point. If GW were really serious about this idea, he wouldn't have dipped into the funds when other budgets got low. The ss fund's secondary function(maybe even primary) is an emergency cash reserve for both parties, and as such, you'll have a hard time prying the money from the politicians hands. Privatization was a feel good campaign issue. If GW actually thought this was possible, then he is a "moron". I think we would be better served by better tax sheltered retirement accounts and higher limits on what we can contribute on existing programs, and truthfully, the last thing I want govt. is meddling with my retirement plans. Marlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Long term and short term investing are two completely different things. No, >you cannot guarantee even over a 100 year timeframe that the market will >rise, but historically, it has risen steadily and significantly over time. >The initial argument was that "you'd be singing a different tune once >majority of the population lost money in their investments", and that this >was somehow an argument against the privatization of Social Security. The >truth is that over the typical span that an individual would contribute to >Social Security, the stock market has outperformed the "return" of SS by an >insane amount. > >I this we are saying mostly the same thing, only with a different spin. I >am not a fan of giving people the ability to keep their cash instead of >paying it to SS. I am suggesting that they be required to keep it invested >in the private sector in a retirement account, not that they be given the >ability to invest willy nilly in any ole individual stock. Making sure >people keep investments in diversified accounts is a problem, but it's not >one that's impossible to overcome. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_community This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
