Bush going to propose privatizing Social Security again tonight.

[JohnT]

At some point the age should probably be changed, yes, since the life expectancy of Americans has gone up since SS was created.

Not only that, but they've increased to the point where the majority of people are able to use their accounts - don't forget that the SS retirement age of 65 was implemented in an time where the avg. lifespan (all Americans) was just 58. Hell, it wasn't until the early-1980s where the average black man was living long enough to collect on their SS money.

[Capt Dizle]

Bush is into the smoke and mirrors phase of his political career now. Nothing of substance will ever come of his presidency again.

[GePap]

The age should go up asap- and as I said, that by itself would extand the life of the system decades. Then, change how benefits are given out, such as nt allowing early retirements on SS money (you can sue your own if you want to do this), and perhaps cutting benefits to people above a certain income bracket. Changes like that, which take incredably less money to implement, would keep the system working and connected to modern realities. SS payroll taxes in no way detract people form the ability to invest thioer own money for thier won pruposes-the people who get hit worse with payroll taxes are also the peaople least likely to invest.

[Patroklos]

We do, and that's why polls overwhemlingly oppose the privitization of SS. That's why actually attempting to privatize it would be political suicide.

And you point out one of the major flaws of democracy, that all anyone cares about is what benefits them now (greed), whether it is for the overall good or not in the long run. Nor does it matter whether it makes any sence in its current form, as long as you get your cash early despite the factors GePap pointed out that call for reform.

Those are the two reasons it is political suicide to even attempt to change the system. Because that, while helping the system and benefiting later generations, is not in accord with the greedy voting seniors.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Plus bush plan only allow you to invest 1% of your SS money anyway so it you paid in 10000 dollar this year you will only be able to invert 100 dollar in stocks.

The three proposals on the drawing board call for investment of 1% to 4% of your wages, not your SS money.

I wouldn't mind a voluntary program, with the existing program available to those who opt out.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're counting on the government to provide for your retirement? That takes a special kind of stupid.

Actually the government is much more dependable than corporations. That's why treasury bonds are safer than corporate bonds.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Stuie
I wouldn't mind a voluntary program, with the existing program available to those who opt out.

I doubt if anyone will opt out anyway, after they find out that they won't get any survivor of disability benefits.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


We do, and that's why polls overwhemlingly oppose the privitization of SS. That's why actually attempting to privatize it would be political suicide.

Which is exactly why you should be in favor of Bush's plan.

[Agathon]

Damn that simian butthead!

[Ned]

Actually what Bush ought to do is increase the individual retirement accounts dramatically. We can now put aside $2000 per year tax-free, but that is woefully insufficient.

As to Social Security, the government ought to use your money to buy long-term government bonds and have the income from those bonds be placed into your account.

[monkspider]

Actually I support this, it will give us socialist-minded folk a lot of new supporters over the next ten to twenty years.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Penny stocks are the riskist investment on wall street. It like puting all of your money in junk bonds very riskly.

Oh, I know that. But with standard stocks, I'd be able to buy 1.5 shares of my company's stock with a $100 a year ... even with a 15 percent discount. Besides, on the lighter side of things, if I have $100 to burn, why not buy into $1 to $10 per share stocks or something (after a bit of research, anyway)?

Personally, I think med tech companies are going to be the money-makers ... especially those that deal with chronic conditions (unless they cure 'em, of course).

Gatekeeper

[JohnT]

Originally posted by monkspider
Actually I support this, it will give us socialist-minded folk a lot of new supporters over the next ten to twenty years.

Again we have a Leftist who wishes ill among people for political gain. What is it with you people?

[St Leo]

Righties like Ned are encouraging us.

[JohnT]

Naw, it's gotta be more deep-rooted than that. Y'all make jokes all the time about killing people, shutting your enemies in the gulags, etc. It is no wonder that the rest of us believe that Communism is a religion of hatred, for haters.