Reply
Mon 8 Nov, 2004 12:17 pm
The New Yorker published a nice article about Bush's plan to turn America into an ownership society:
"The ownership society promises freedom, but at the price of a huge shift in risk, away from government and society and onto individual citizens."
Quote:THE NEW YORKER
THE FINANCIAL PAGE
THE RISK SOCIETY
Source
For the sake of the "gimme now" faction of our society, I sincerely hope that Bush gives people a choice of how they want to apportion their social security. These are the folks who are up to their eyeballs in debt...................but have a huge HDTV, and a gas guzzling SUV in their driveways.
Unfortunately, there are many people who think only in the present. The entire concept of delay of gratification has no meaning for them. Those are the folks who need "big daddy" government, and a secure retirement.
For those who are more forward thinking, even the partial privitization of social security will be a boon. Yes, you will have to do your "homework", learn about the options, and choose carefully. Yes, there is a risk. But isn't delaying gratification, and taking intelligent risks, the mark of an adult?
Good article, Walter.
Phoenix, you're forgetting the people who are already on social security and who cannot work. They paid into it all their lives and now it is threatened. Social Security is supposed to be a trust, and the Federal government has continued to borrow from it without any intention of repaying the loan. I realize that it was not intended to be one's entire financial support, but life's circumstances often find some people up the creek and it has nothing to do with being on the dole.
If people's contributions to SSI can be channeled into other types of investments, there will be a shortfall in paying out what's owed to retirees and other eligible folks. I've heard no explanation of how this is to be covered.
As for one's investing SSI contributions into the stock market, all well and good. But what happens when the market tanks for a a few years, as recently happened?
I realize that the libertarians and objectivisits among us may say, tough luck, but that won't wash in the real world. The gov't will be left holding the bag, and this plan will cost (us) a fortune.
Bush? Do you mean President Ken Doll? AAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!
Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:Phoenix, you're forgetting the people who are already on social security and who cannot work.
Unless I am way off the mark, from what I have read and heard, people who are now on social security, and people who will be on social security in the near future, will not be affected by Bush's plan.
The group that would be affected are the younger workers, who have many years left to make this plan workable. What I don't know, is what he proposes as the cutoff dates, but I am sure that we will find out in short order.
Letty dear, please stop worrying!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020228-1.html
A very objective source for information. I wonder why it neglected to mention the relaxing of top heavy rules for retirement plans?
Am I the only one who works for a company that has elected to eliminate the employer match to it's 401K plan for hourly workers or am I just one of the lucky first?
I paid into MY social security from the time I had my paper route when I was 12 years old up until the time I left the country at 36 years old and when it comes time for me to retire, if the money is not there for me, then I've been robbed by the government. Plain and simple!
Montana- One of the points of privitization is that when you DO retire the money WILL be there.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:Am I the only one who works for a company that has elected to eliminate the employer match to it's 401K plan for hourly workers or am I just one of the lucky first?
Mesquite- I am sorry for you personally, but after all, a company has the right to modify its perks. That has nothing to do with government!
Phoenix,
I wasn't looking for sympathy. I was looking to see if others were also affected by the
top heavy rule changes. Note that the company did not stop contributions to all employees, just to hourly employees or in the jargon of my company "craft employees" (read less highly compensated). Salaried employees and executives retained their matches.
As these rules are woven into the tax code they definitely have something to do with government.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Montana- One of the points of privitization is that when you DO retire the money WILL be there.
You mean, private companies can't be adjusted bancrupt but the government can? :wink:
Walter- In the next few years, the "baby boomers" will reach retirement age. That is a HUGE cohort of people, who will receive retirement benefits. People are living longer. I don't know the figures off the top of my head, but if social security is not revised, it will run out of money in "X" number of years.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:Montana- One of the points of privitization is that when you DO retire the money WILL be there.
You mean, private companies can't be adjusted bancrupt but the government can? :wink:
I am beginning to think Phoenix has been drinking too much Bush juice in celebration.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Montana- One of the points of privitization is that when you DO retire the money WILL be there.
That's all fine and dandy for those who haven't already paid into SSI, but what about the rest of us who have? I paid my part for 24 years and I am entitled to it when I retire. The government had no damn right to take our money that we paid into our retirement and then turn around and say"sorry, we took it all and there's nothing left". If the poverty isn't bad enough there as it is, if he cuts off the people who already paid in, then god help the people who have nothing else.
to respond to the title of this thread....riiight...with him and his cronies being the owners...
That's my problem with it, BPB. Though I think the idea could be good (depending on the details, of course) the fact is I don't trust these people.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Walter- In the next few years, the "baby boomers" will reach retirement age. That is a HUGE cohort of people, who will receive retirement benefits. People are living longer. I don't know the figures off the top of my head, but if social security is not revised, it will run out of money in "X" number of years.
And the Bush plan diverts $2 trillion from the present plan to put it where the money managers get a tidy cut. Gee, there is that diversion word again. There is nothing in the Bush plan to guarantee the viability of social security.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace