On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40 times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k +
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

Too much money there, and the wrong premise. SS should only provide a
bottom to keep people housed and fed if they contributed but have no
other savings/investments. It's not an real "investment."
Lots of actuarial figuring goes into it, given how people die off.
Why I want to get it out of the hands of the gov is because they spend
it for other things. Their accounting is pure B.S.
Having the individual accounts "invested" in non-gov entities would be
a dose of reality and accountability, and might stimulate the economy,
but if the gov won't guarantee it, why let them take it out of your
paycheck? Might as well put it in FDIC insured savings. But again
you're back to a gov guarantee.
There is no answer to ensured retirement without the gov.
And ensured retirement money - subsistence or not - is the main reason
for SS. It will never go away, because poor old folks sleeping under
bridges and begging for alms just won't be tolerated.
If equities get into the mix - and that may or may not be a good idea
- you get another can of worms opened with preferences and all.
And again, if the gov won't insure at least a bottom, what good are
they?

--Vic