|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 17, 2010 8:50:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 17, 2010 9:22:04 GMT -8
That should be unsettling to most of us subject to someone else holding the strings of our retirements. What do you think about what the situation would be if your retirement was controlled by you entirely? What if your contributions and the employers contributions were made to an account controlled by you?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 17, 2010 14:39:30 GMT -8
That should be unsettling to most of us subject to someone else holding the strings of our retirements. What do you think about what the situation would be if your retirement was controlled by you entirely? What if your contributions and the employers contributions were made to an account controlled by you? I'm not sure how that would work out in my case (i.e., the teacher pension situation). I can, however, tell you one thing; what you have suggested is what Social Security should have looked like from the start. The failure to set up individual accounts for each person covered under Social Security was a colossal blunder, one whose inherent weaknesses are becoming more clear each year. The pay-as-you-go nature of S.S. has put this country in a terrible bind, one which can only be remedied by use of very unpleasant measures. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 19, 2010 7:37:38 GMT -8
That should be unsettling to most of us subject to someone else holding the strings of our retirements. What do you think about what the situation would be if your retirement was controlled by you entirely? What if your contributions and the employers contributions were made to an account controlled by you? I'm not sure how that would work out in my case (i.e., the teacher pension situation). I can, however, tell you one thing; what you have suggested is what Social Security should have looked like from the start. The failure to set up individual accounts for each person covered under Social Security was a colossal blunder, one whose inherent weaknesses are becoming more clear each year. The pay-as-you-go nature of S.S. has put this country in a terrible bind, one which can only be remedied by use of very unpleasant measures. AzWm Agree with AzWm and totally disagree with Win. Win, do you have any idea of how many seniors would be living on welfare (if they were lucky) or would be homeless if the average American managed their own retirement funds? My IRA lost almost 40% in the crash and it was 'professionaly' managed for gods sake.  The concept of Social Security was/is a great idea providing a foundation so that seniors would't sink into poverty after they retired. There were two problems. The first being how it was funded and the second being that many people use Social Security as their only source of retirement income. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 19, 2010 9:25:44 GMT -8
I'm not sure how that would work out in my case (i.e., the teacher pension situation). I can, however, tell you one thing; what you have suggested is what Social Security should have looked like from the start. The failure to set up individual accounts for each person covered under Social Security was a colossal blunder, one whose inherent weaknesses are becoming more clear each year. The pay-as-you-go nature of S.S. has put this country in a terrible bind, one which can only be remedied by use of very unpleasant measures. AzWm Agree with AzWm and totally disagree with Win. Win, do you have any idea of how many seniors would be living on welfare (if they were lucky) or would be homeless if the average American managed their own retirement funds? My IRA lost almost 40% in the crash and it was 'professionaly' managed for gods sake. The concept of Social Security was/is a great idea providing a foundation so that seniors wouldn't sink into poverty after they retired. There were two problems. The first being how it was funded and the second being that many people use Social Security as their only source of retirement income. There is a third problem, one that we cannot blame on FDR. That is the practice of the Feds raiding the SS trust fund to help pay for current general expenses. In return, the Feds deposit nice little IOUs, pieces of paper that are of questionable value. I'm not sure when that practice started, or under which administration it occurred. There is no question, however, that such a practice is terrible. Private companies doing something like that would be subject to prosecution. To second the idea expressed by Newt Gingrich (in a 1999 address), I am not so extreme a libertarian to deny that it's probably a good thing for the govt. to force people to save. The problem with SS is not the basic concept of encouraging savings for retirement; it is the implementation. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2010 12:38:13 GMT -8
I'm not sure how that would work out in my case (i.e., the teacher pension situation). I can, however, tell you one thing; what you have suggested is what Social Security should have looked like from the start. The failure to set up individual accounts for each person covered under Social Security was a colossal blunder, one whose inherent weaknesses are becoming more clear each year. The pay-as-you-go nature of S.S. has put this country in a terrible bind, one which can only be remedied by use of very unpleasant measures. AzWm Agree with AzWm and totally disagree with Win. Win, do you have any idea of how many seniors would be living on welfare (if they were lucky) or would be homeless if the average American managed their own retirement funds? My IRA lost almost 40% in the crash and it was 'professionaly' managed for gods sake. The concept of Social Security was/is a great idea providing a foundation so that seniors would't sink into poverty after they retired. There were two problems. The first being how it was funded and the second being that many people use Social Security as their only source of retirement income. Tell just where what I have advocated on this thread and what William is saying differ to any great extent. I will agree that if left without guidance or rules, that there would be a lot of folks left the victim of their own bad decisions. I would set up some basic rules like the Federal TSP system. The main point as far as I am concerned is getting the system and money out of the hands of Congress. You can set up some rules to insure some sort of safety net and do what I am for. Do you have any idea what the unfunded liability of Social Security is? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2010 12:41:37 GMT -8
That should be unsettling to most of us subject to someone else holding the strings of our retirements. What do you think about what the situation would be if your retirement was controlled by you entirely? What if your contributions and the employers contributions were made to an account controlled by you? I'm not sure how that would work out in my case (i.e., the teacher pension situation). I can, however, tell you one thing; what you have suggested is what Social Security should have looked like from the start. The failure to set up individual accounts for each person covered under Social Security was a colossal blunder, one whose inherent weaknesses are becoming more clear each year. The pay-as-you-go nature of S.S. has put this country in a terrible bind, one which can only be remedied by use of very unpleasant measures. AzWm If you are interested in what could be, set up a model to show how you would have done with your system in hands other than the entity that has the responsibility of making good on the promises. When what you are promised can not be supported by what is going into the system, it is just a matter of time before there is a default. |
|
