"A little late, but thanks for the tip! Say, will these shackles effect my backswing?"
Posted on 09/26/2007 6:18:35 PM PDT by Libloather
No way. It would be a political disaster. Worse, you'd be targeting middle and low income folks, since those are the only people who can invest in Roth IRAs. You can't even play the "rich folks" card.
I’m gonna get means tested and not get a single dime back. That’s what I get for saving like a fool.
Spouses who have never contributed to the system are also entitled to a SS benefit.
The Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that there is no legal right to Social Security benefits. The federal government can change the rules any time it wants, e.g., 1983 when it changed the age for full retirement benefits from 65 to 67.
Exactly - which is why I never expect to see anything from Social Security. There’s nothing there. Those bonds are worthless as far as I’m concerned. The ability of the Government to pay off those bonds is their ability to tax. I would have preferred a privatization long ago - at least I would have earned a return on the investment. The Government argument against privatization appears to be two-fold: 1) markets go down, and 2) they can’t trust people to invest their new-found funds. I would submit that the government convert the program over to an annuity program. With an annuity you would know you were getting screwed, but you would generate a return (meager is better than none).
All the SSTF represents is the good faith of the government to pay its obligations. It is an unfunded liability that the USG must find money to honor that commitment. They can only do that thru borrowing or increasing taxes.
I would have preferred a privatization long ago - at least I would have earned a return on the investment. The Government argument against privatization appears to be two-fold: 1) markets go down, and 2) they can’t trust people to invest their new-found funds.
SS is not a pension plan. You don't own your contributions. You can pay into SS for 50 years and not receive a penny except for a small burial allowance. It is an insurance scheme. The Dems don't want privatization because it decreases their ability to control people by tying them to the USG. The USG thrift fund model could be used, i.e., a limited number of index funds [stocks and bonds] plus government securities, i.e., people could choose to invest anyway they wish. You could have a small SS definied benefit program [read insurance] to cover disability and survivor programs.
You wouldn't need an annuity program.
Privatize it NOW. And, give me all the money that I and my employers have contributed on my behalf. With interest!
Every ponzi scheme is doomed to failure.
"A little late, but thanks for the tip! Say, will these shackles effect my backswing?"
I would take half of what I've put in, in cash, just to be removed from the impending disaster. I'll be out of the loop - forever.
Back in the day, I used to have a Christmas fund with a manually stamped bankbook. I long for that 5% interest on savings!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.