On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > To add to peoples' retirement income, on the paternalist premise that > they lack low-risk vehicles for savings, plus the need a push to use > such vehicles if they are available. > > She sees this as preferable to simply expanding Social Security; for > why you should read her paper. > > Most people who consider it doubt SS benefits make for an adequate > retirement, in and of themselves. Originally the idea was that SS was > one of three pillars of retirement income, the others being > employer-paid pensions and individual, personal saving. In recent > years the other two pillars have withered, prompting TG's plan.
Sure I have no objection to supplementing social security. We can argue about whether "savings accounts" are really a good way to do it. But if it is to be universal, as you said, it has to be subsidized. Where is the money for that going to come from. And if it is done as part of a "Fix" for social security are they going to be able to risk at least a modest raid? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
