On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:55:21 -0500, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:
How is it different from a typical IRA or 401K?
From what I have read & heard, Bush's proposed plan is to allow people
to divert part of their SS taxes into an investment account... details
on what type of account and with whom are pretty sketchy, but the notion
of putting it inot the gov't employee's... or Congress' own...
retirement investment mutual funds has been ruled out.
Ok, that's good so far, but it's short on details. Hardly enough to
pass judgement against yet.
The difference:
Not paying is not an option. Choices of investment are likely to be much
more limited. It is not tax advantaged in any way (other than that
you're already paying SS tax).
But it is similar in principle to an IRA or 401K type of investment,
is it not?
... Where do you get the notion that some
mythical phantom people will be skimming the personal accounts of the
holders?
Please quote where I said any such thing.
You made the statement along the lines of : "Bush's private account
proposal is nothing less than a very cynical attempt to manipulate the
system and steer large amounts of wealth into the pockets of his
supporters".
That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.
How did you explain? How CAN you explain something that hasn't even
been codified yet? You are only echoing the speculation and scare
tactics that the DNC have used to try and discredit this plan.
Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?
I assume you can tell me how he plans to "steer large amounts of
wealth into the pockets of his supporters"? Where is that "wealth"
coming from, if not from the investors?
(sigh) As I said before-
Do any SS taxes currently go into Wall St accounts? No (shake your head
side to side)
Will they if Bush's proposal is passed? Yes (nod your head up & down)
Do Wall St firms profit from accounts they handle? Yes (nod your head up
& down)
QED The chosen Wall St firms will take a profit out of SS taxes under
Bushes plan.
But how is a reasonable administration fee interpreted as something
sinister and underhanded?
I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.
How? Private investment firms set up accounts to suit all sorts of
situations. They also do not do it for free. There are fees for
managing those accounts. Are they not entitled to recover a small
amount of money to defray their operating costs? If you have a 401K
fund now, you're already paying those "greedy wall streeters", so how
would the federal plan be any different? Should it be? If the
individual doesn't pay the investment firm, who does? Explain how this
is "flirting with being illegal" or even unethical, as long as the
costs are up front and out in the open from the onset?
The part about increased campaign contributions is pure speculation
fueled by the scare tactics of the DNC.
As I also sais earlier, this was pretty much verbatim what the news
releases from Vice President Cheney's office was saying, before they got
their spin control better organized.
... Is a
reasonable plan administration fee not appropriate in a managed equity
private account? Would not that fee be deducted from earned interest
resulting in no additional outlay from the government?
That's the way my 401K works.
Then why not put more money into your 401K and devote some time & effort
into actually *fixing* Social Security?
I want to put *ALL* of my SS money into my 401K and eliminate SS
entirely.
Well, that's not an option.
No, but I'd be the first to support it if it were. I WANT control over
my investment funds. I don't want the government deciding my fate. I
don't want to have put in 45 years of SS only to find out come
retirement, that the money's no longer there.
... If everyone has a 401K, why the need for SS at all?
Because your 401K does not offer the same benefits that SS does. For
example, let's suppose that you get killed in plane crash and you leave
behind a few dependent orphans... the get your 401K, which might be very
good, or it might be peanuts... however SS benefits are reliable &
consistent.
And tapping off of the income of others, which is why the fund is in
danger. Besides, I have a company paid benefit which covers accidental
death, and long term disability. Insurance policies are also offered
to make up for what SS currently covers. I suspect that a private
individual can do better than what the government currently offers.
You are only fooling yourself if you believe that SS is "reliable &
consistent". That's the whole point. If the fund becomes
insolvent,(which it can as long as the government can control it) you
have no choice about it. Think Enron, only it's the SS fund.
For example, the stock market can (and does) go down. If you pick
stocks... or your mutual fund manager picks stocks... that fall off a
cliff, then too bad. In retirement you eat dog food & sleep on the street.
That's why any good financial planner will tell you to diversify -
never put all of your eggs into one basket. The stock market has ups
and downs, but has historically performed well over the long term. And
that's what a 401K fund usually is.
Social Security is just exactly that... security.
THAT is a fallacy.
It's not supposed to
be a cushy retirement plan and never was. It's more a form of insurance,
funded by a Ponzi scheme but with the excess invested in Treasury bonds
(a point often overlooked)
But for us later "Baby Boomers", the "ponzi" part of the scheme will
likely become a reality, which is why the "security" part of it is
questionable.
Who you rather have direct control over your investment, or would you
rather let the government do it?
... The
people stand to expect a better long term benefit, there is no chance
that the government can "raid" the fund for pork projects.
1- the people *might* get a better long term benefit.
There is evidence to support this. Just look at Galveston Texas in the
1980's when they opted out of SS and invested privately.
2- the gov't is not "raid"ing SS funds now.
But they have in the past, and there is nothing stopping them from
doing it in the future.
Does "liberal demonization" of Bush's SS proposal change the *fact* that
the Bush-Cheney team have lied about his plan and it's impact?
Who said they lied? In what way?
They (and you) lie about almost every single aspect of it.
Where's the proof?
(sigh) repost
Repost what? More speculation?
The most obvious example I can present is Bush's own statements:
1- it will somehow "fix" Social Security
It can. Why do you assume that this is a "lie"?
Diverting a fraction of SS taxes into private accounts can not and will
not "fix" the future imbalance of SS payouts to income. The only way to
fix it is to either reduce benefits or increase SS taxes.
By weaning people off of social security and on to their own accounts,
you "fix" the problem, by eventually eliminating it.
2- it will not increase deficits (and he compounded this lie by stating
that Alan Greenspan said it would not increase the deficit, which is the
exact opposite of what Greenspan actually said)
If the money brought into SS is diverted into private accounts, how
does that increase the deficit?
Because SS will have to make up the difference between the lost income
and the payout.
Which will be made up when the people who diverted their money into
the private accounts, become eligible for far less from SS.
... Remember that the SS payout will
decrease to those who opt out in favor of the private account.
But that money is being paid out now.
That's a problem anyway. Estimates claim there was once 16 people
paying in for every 1 taking out. Soon it will be down to 2 or 3
people paying in for every one taking out. SS cannot be maintained
under these conditions. You either have to drastically raise the SS
tax or drastically reduce payments or the scope and duration of
coverage. Private accounts are a way to slowly wean us off of this
self destructing system.
3- that "all options are on the table" when they reject other proposals
more directly aimed at stabilizing SS in the long run
He said that "all options are on the table". That does not mean that
every one will be enacted. So tell me again how that's a lie?
When you say "all options are on the table" and then immediately... with
no discussion or debate... rule out several practical proposals, and
furthermore accuse your opponents of *not having* any proposals, then
that is lying.... and bad faith.
That's not what happened, although the spinmeisters will try to play
it that way.
But what innovative proposals have the democrats offered? None.
This is exactly what the Bush Administration has done.
The discussions are not even over yet, so how can you make that claim
with any intellectual honesty?
4- that this plan should "stand on it's own" when there are
behind-the-scenes pro-Bush/Cheney publicity campaigns spending tens of
millions of dollars promoting this plan
Because the minions of the DNC like "moveon.org" are spending equal
amounts of money spreading scare propaganda (Which you have apparently
bought into hook line and sinker) to trash the idea, to scare
seniors, who aren't even affected by the plan.
What have I said that is "scare propaganda"?
*Everything* I have posted is gospel truth.
When you make claims that private accounts will not work, you either
have some intrinsic knowledge or experience in the area, or you are
speculating. Trying to paint a doom and gloom picture because you are
afraid of change is a scare tactic.
5- Democrat opposition is based on the supposition that Dems want to
"spend" that money (as opposed to what... the wise & conservative fiscal
management of the Bush Administration so far? And the fact that Congress
can't spend SS, and never could?)
You are claiming that the SS fund has never been "raided" or otherwise
"appropriated" for projects not directly relating to SS?
Yep. That's the truth.
I guess you should be mad at those democrats who tried accusing
republicans of exactly that, including John Kerry.
... There are
many who would vehemently disagree with you, including certain
democrats who accuse republicans of that very deed.
Lots of people put partisanship ahead of truth.
Amen to that.....
The fact is that the SS surplus has been used to mask the deficit.
Ah! so it's "passive" raiding in numbers only.
The
SS surplus is invested in treasury bonds, which underwrites the deficit.
Those are a sort of fudgy way to claim that it is being spent... one
might say that it is a legal money-laundering scheme. But it is still a
fact that the gov't can not and has not spent SS funds on other programs.
Fred Astaire would be proud.
If it's so great, why can't they tell the truth?
That you think that they are not being truthful is an example of the
liberal demonization at work.
No, the thing that makes me think they are lying is that their
statements don't match up with facts in the real world.
Considering your loose definition of what constitutes a "fact", I'm
not surprised.
Yep, I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.
Not at all. Your "real world" occurrences are based on what you
perceive as truth. But unless you are there directly, that "truth" is
brought to you in the form of a second (or third) hand report. Someone
collected and arranged that report. The report is then subject to
whatever spin or manipulation the reporter sees fit to apply.
Dave
|