|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 6, 2012 4:56:48 GMT -8
Tell me, William, in your idea, who would invest the money and then pay it out on retirement? I knew you would bring this up, and it's a very legitimate question. To answer the second part first; the SS administration would cut checks just as it does now, the amount of each check based on how much money is in the account and other factors (I'm sure you know that SS recipients are given a number of options having to do with time of first distribution, survivor benefits, etc.) Now the first part of your question. I don't see why this would be a problem. The funds placed in individual SS accounts could be invested in a number of ways, with the account holder having some (but perhaps not total) control over what those investment instruments should be. Since this would still be a government sponsored system, the feds could set standards to see that highly risky deals could not be selected for investment. People who did not want to take part in this decision process could turn their accounts over to government approved managers. You might want to take a look at this; it's a description of how things are done in Chile. As I understand it, their system works pretty well. www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.htmlRemember that I have mooted this idea as what would have have been a better way to set up SS in the first place. Unfortunately, it wasn't done that way and we now have to struggle with the byproducts of a flawed system. It's politically tough to make basic changes even if those changes might well solve current problems. On the other hand, they made the change in Chile and that country has not collapsed into economic chaos. We really ought to give this sort of thing at least a fair hearing. AzWm You might also cite the city of Galvaston and the Federal Thrift Savings Plan as examples of how govenment could run it.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 6, 2012 9:15:22 GMT -8
Tell me, William, in your idea, who would invest the money and then pay it out on retirement? He probably won't think of it, but is J. David alive and out of jail? I see some parallels with SSA. Oh really? I know a number of people who lost their life savings with J. David. How many people have been wiped out by SSA? I'm waiting....
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 6, 2012 9:29:19 GMT -8
Tell me, William, in your idea, who would invest the money and then pay it out on retirement? I knew you would bring this up, and it's a very legitimate question. To answer the second part first; the SS administration would cut checks just as it does now, the amount of each check based on how much money is in the account and other factors (I'm sure you know that SS recipients are given a number of options having to do with time of first distribution, survivor benefits, etc.) Now the first part of your question. I don't see why this would be a problem. The funds placed in individual SS accounts could be invested in a number of ways, with the account holder having some (but perhaps not total) control over what those investment instruments should be. Since this would still be a government sponsored system, the feds could set standards to see that highly risky deals could not be selected for investment. People who did not want to take part in this decision process could turn their accounts over to government approved managers. You might want to take a look at this; it's a description of how things are done in Chile. As I understand it, their system works pretty well. www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.htmlRemember that I have mooted this idea as what would have have been a better way to set up SS in the first place. Unfortunately, it wasn't done that way and we now have to struggle with the byproducts of a flawed system. It's politically tough to make basic changes even if those changes might well solve current problems. On the other hand, they made the change in Chile and that country has not collapsed into economic chaos. We really ought to give this sort of thing at least a fair hearing. AzWm Chile's plan does interest me but I'm not sure it is the rousing success that you are touting. tcf.org/commentary/pdfs/nc962/chilefactsheet.pdfand www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.htmlNote: These two articles are quite old and I looked for some more recient ones but couldn't find them. Your linked article is also undated.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 6, 2012 9:45:30 GMT -8
Tell me, William, in your idea, who would invest the money and then pay it out on retirement? I knew you would bring this up, and it's a very legitimate question. To answer the second part first; the SS administration would cut checks just as it does now, the amount of each check based on how much money is in the account and other factors (I'm sure you know that SS recipients are given a number of options having to do with time of first distribution, survivor benefits, etc.) Now the first part of your question. I don't see why this would be a problem. The funds placed in individual SS accounts could be invested in a number of ways, with the account holder having some (but perhaps not total) control over what those investment instruments should be. Since this would still be a government sponsored system, the feds could set standards to see that highly risky deals could not be selected for investment. People who did not want to take part in this decision process could turn their accounts over to government approved managers. You might want to take a look at this; it's a description of how things are done in Chile. As I understand it, their system works pretty well. www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-jp.htmlRemember that I have mooted this idea as what would have have been a better way to set up SS in the first place. Unfortunately, it wasn't done that way and we now have to struggle with the byproducts of a flawed system. It's politically tough to make basic changes even if those changes might well solve current problems. On the other hand, they made the change in Chile and that country has not collapsed into economic chaos. We really ought to give this sort of thing at least a fair hearing. AzWm That was an interesting speech. The most important thing would be mandatory contributions. That would be imperative for a plan like this to work. I am surprised that conservatives would support that. I am wondering when that speech was given. The speaker said they had a 14 year history and that the plan began in 1981. 1995?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 6, 2012 15:27:38 GMT -8
He probably won't think of it, but is J. David alive and out of jail? I see some parallels with SSA. Oh really? I know a number of people who lost their life savings with J. David. How many people have been wiped out by SSA? I'm waiting.... Tell that to Aztec70. J. David had about the same chance as the Current Social Security System unless it gets a massive make over.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 6, 2012 19:24:20 GMT -8
Oh really? I know a number of people who lost their life savings with J. David. How many people have been wiped out by SSA? I'm waiting.... Tell that to Aztec70. J. David had about the same chance as the Current Social Security System unless it gets a massive make over. LOL
|
|