From: Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you are being serious, a 401K is *nothing* like Social Security.
I pay Social Security in order to pay for the Social Security for the older
generation in my family.
I do not expect it to be there for me. That's the primary reason why I
*oppose* Social Security accounts. I do not want them able to play games
with the Social Security of my parents.
For myself, I'd rather they tackle the whole healthcare mess. Control my
healthcare costs and I can put the saved money in my own IRA or 401K, thank
you very much.
You miss the point of SS. Its not a retirement fund- its retirement
insurance. Its a 100% garuntee, short of the government collapsing (in
which case you have bigger issues). You will get back $x when you're in
your old age. You will be able to afford food and housing. Its a promise
we make as a society that we will not let you die in the streets at night
from lack of bare essentials.
It is not meant to be a complete solution. Its meant to be a minimal
solution. If you want to live comfortably or in luxury, you need to have
additional savings. SS is more like keeping a part of your savings in
government bonds- even if you lose your shirt on the rest of it, you can't
lose that part.
Thats why I don't support SS accounts- its counter to the purpose of SS.
With SS as stock accounts, you can lose the money and not have the cash in x
years when you need it. Its just going to cause us to raise taxes even
higher to account for the lost money (and lets be realistic- most people
lose money in the market). So instead of maybe raising taxes a small amount
in 50 years to cover SS, we'll have to raise it a large amount and pay out
additional money to keep our eldery clothed, fed, and sheltered.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
