On social security...

I know we all want to keep social security, but I have a question. Is Bush's plan to allow young workers to put 4 percent of their SS taxes in a private account, really a bad idea? I have concerns about how Bush is going to pay for both plans (keeping the old system for current retirees, and funding the new system), but something has got to be done. Conservative accounts will net a better return than the current system, and even if the markets tank, shouldn't individuals be free to make that choice for themselves, considering the chances for a good return aren't the bad?

but Social Security is an insurance policy. not an investment plan

Whether we want to admit or not, the SS system will go broke soon. Something's got to be done.

Besides, shouldn't we be free to choose a differemt, possibly more beneficial insurance policy?

only beneficial insurance policy is held by the brokers. Mom and Dad took out a "mutual" fund in 1960, Dreyfus. For $50.00 a month for ten years, they would double their money. Guaranteed.

To cut a long story short, after 15 years, the fund was worth $5000.00. Of the $50.00 a month, $14.00 a month were "management" fees. Then there were surrender fees when Mom, after Dad died, had to pay. She got $4800.00 for a $6000.00 investment over 15 years.

It is like gamboling, the house always wins. And in the mutual fund market, you are not "allowed" to manage the fund. The house manages it.

Oh, and when I questioned WHY? I was told that the person who sold them the policy had no business guarantying anything.

Alot of people I know do and we're not in the top dollar bread winners. It's a "bene" that our company gives us - we can have it automagically deducted. Private accounts already exist. * is just trying to get employers off the hook for a matching 4% they'd owe if it was put directly into SS, plus get a whole lotta 4%'s more for his Wall Street buddies.

it's about relieving employers of the "Soc Sec tax," not about what is best for the worker.

If and when I see that *'s plan actually includes the historically important matching contributions from employers, I will look at it honestly.

That said, I'm not holding my breath.

in Chile and Great Britain, how can you ask if it's a good plan? Apparently, the chances for a good return weren't that good and that is why Britain is considering changing to our system as it is now.

Bush: A lot of people in America think there is a trust: Your money goes in, the government holds it, and then the government gives your money back when you retire. That's just not the way it works.

Right, the government doesn't give it back when you retire. The government is legally required to pay back into the Trust with interest:

Each obligation issued for purchase by the Trust Funds under this subsection shall be evidenced by a paper instrument in the form of a bond, note, or certificate of indebtedness issued by the Secretary of the Treasury setting forth the principal amount, date of maturity, and interest rate of the obligation, and stating on its face that the obligation shall be incontestable in the hands of the Trust Fund to which it is issued, that the obligation is supported by the full faith and credit of the United States, and that the United States is pledged to the payment of the obligation with respect to both principal and interest.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000401----000-.html

Bush: Right now, we're paying for a lot of programs other than Social Security with the payroll tax coming in, thereby leaving a pile of IOUs. And part of why I think a personal account is an attractive option for a younger worker is that there would be real assets in the system at this point in time.

Is Bush saying the bonds aren't real assets? If so, he is just plain wrong. If the bonds are not secure, then the United States has become a cheap scam, not worthy of financial support by anyone. People will wise up to this; they are already starting.