Skip to comments.
The Bear Market Makes The Case for Privatizing Social Security
Ayn Rand Institute ^
| 10/02/02
| Robert Tracinski
Posted on 10/03/2002 2:14:47 PM PDT by RJCogburn
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
1
posted on
10/03/2002 2:14:47 PM PDT
by
RJCogburn
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: RJCogburn
Great article, the GOP should be hammering this point. They should have simple charts showing that even if a worker who invested in the market over the last 40 years had to sell everything at the lowest point of this bear market, he'd still have a vastly better return than what today's workers can expect from SS.
To: mr.cathey
Your social security is in the "Stock Market". But it's controlled by politicians and all you are getting for your investment is a lousy 2% or less. If the Government would just open a 5% bank account and put the Social Security money in there, you would recieve over twice what you do. If they were to put it in a 7% returning Money Market account, you would recieve almost 4 times the amount.
But don't worry, the good politicians will keep your <2% earnings safe from that big, bad 7% earnings and you can sleep well at night.
To: RJCogburn
5
posted on
10/03/2002 2:25:14 PM PDT
by
justshe
To: ThinkDifferent
My little 401K account has dwindled. Our company broker tells me not to fret. Because with each weekly buy, I'm buying lots more stock for my buck. When the bull returns, I'll be sitting pretty good! Keeping positive market watch!
To: RJCogburn
"So why is everyone afraid to suggest privatization? Why won't Republicans take advantage of this golden opportunity?"
.....I see an opportunity for a politician to go to a CEO and say "..if you donate big to my re-election campaign I'll make sure Social Security invests heavily in your company"
Good luck to everybody!
Stonewalls
To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; mr.cathey
As ASB explained, PLUS:
When you finally reach the end of life, you can pass on any remaining funds, which may be substantial, to your heirs, or your church, or your school, or FreeRepublic, compared to the big ZERO you pass on from Soc. Sec.
8
posted on
10/03/2002 2:37:24 PM PDT
by
RJCogburn
To: mr.cathey
God thankyou for not having my social security in the stock market. At least I get this little social security check. Are you proud of that? You prefer to have a bunch of corrupt fools in Washington DC take care of your money for you rather than take the little extra effort required to make a sensible investment? Does it mean enough to you to put a gun to my head and take my money to do it with? I guess Social Security must be pretty good nowadays if you can afford a computer, an internet connection and a Marxist opinion.
To: STONEWALLS
I see an opportunity for a politician to go to a CEO and say "..if you donate big to my re-election campaign I'll make sure Social Security invests heavily in your company"Done correctly, each of us would make the investment decision, not the pols.
To: RJCogburn
I have always looked at Social Security privitization in this manner: No economic growth and there will be no Social Security funds to pay out anyway (without greatly increasing debt-gdp ratio). So it counters the argument that a period of low growth and depressed capital markets make a private account worth less.
Bottom line, remove government barriers to economic growth and the rest will take care of itself. Privitization will expand the pool of national savings and help spur growth. Even allowing individuals to place FICA funds in savings vehicles (CD's, money market, etc) would be preferable to what we have now. And last but not least an individual can leave a lifetime of savings to heirs. You die before you collect...your family loses out.
To: Prodigal Son
Retirement savings acount make perfect sense. However, there are two problems that must be addressed:
1) Are we willing to make it a complusory system-- i.e. the government takes money from you wages and places in an account that you control but which you can only access after reaching retirement age?
If we don't then some idiots will try to opt out only to become destitute welfare cases later. Sure, you could be cold hearted and say "too damn bad" but the thoughts of widowed little old ladies starving because thier husbands pocketed the cash while telling them "yes dear we're contributing" for 40 years is not a good image.
2) Social security as it exists invests very little, it really works as a transfer of wealth from the working to the retired. A shift to private accounts would require a transition period and probably result in big deficits.
To: *Social Security
To: Pitchfork
If we don't then some idiots will try to opt out only to become destitute welfare cases later. Sure, you could be cold hearted and say "too damn bad" but the thoughts of widowed little old ladies starving because thier husbands pocketed the cash while telling them "yes dear we're contributing" for 40 years is not a good image. Damn the image. You got no right to my money. I care not what happens to you when you're old. That's your problem. It's your life. Do with it as you please. Don't make your life my responsibility. If I starve when I'm old- tough sh!t! Freedom's a scary thing. You can't have it both ways. You want to be free? That means nobody else is responsible for you. You want other people to share in the responsibility for your outcome- you're not free. Take your pick.
To: RJCogburn
Bump.
15
posted on
10/03/2002 3:05:16 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Lee_Atwater
No economic growth and there will be no Social Security funds to pay out anyway Excellent point.
To: RJCogburn
The worst fears raised by critics have been realized, with Wall Street at the bottom of the longest and possibly deepest bear market in 60 years.
Fasten your seatbelts -- we're not at the bottom.
To: Pitchfork
Are we willing to make it a complusory system-- i.e. the government takes money from you wages and places in an account that you control but which you can only access after reaching retirement age? That would probably have to be the compromise initially. Hopefully the restrictions could be lessened over time.
A shift to private accounts would require a transition period and probably result in big deficits.
That's probably true. It's a choice between big deficits now and gigantic unmanageable deficits later. And since "later" in this case is past the time our elected officials plan to be in office, it's easy to see what their choice is.
To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
But it's controlled by politicians and all you are getting for your investment is a lousy 2% or less.If the current SS System = Enron, then Dubya's "privatization" plan = Arthur Anderson.
Both major political parties perpetuate The Big Lie regarding Social Security. The Big Lie has existed since Social Security's inception. The debate over "privatization" is only the latest version of The Big Lie.
The Big Lie is that Social Security is some kind of retirement savings plan.
It is NOT.
Social Security is a socialist income redistribution scheme, nothing else.
Those who are working are taxed to provide a "safety net" for those who are less fortunate.
Originally, this meant retirees and surviving dependents.
Congress has, of course, complicated it far beyond this over the last 65 years.
But one fact remains: it is NOT a "savings plan", it is an income redistribution scheme.
A major facet of The Big Lie is that "we have to do something so that Social Security remains solvent in the future.
Poppycock!
In today's age of modern computerization, the computation for operating an income redistribution scheme that remains perpetually solvent is quite simple:
This month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements
The only change necessary to the current system is that monthly payments to eligible recipients would be a variable amount, not fixed.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR "TRUST" FUND!!!
Congress should NEVER have been permitted to confiscate so much money from the American People in the name of The Big Lie. This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures. If private sector employers did the same thing with their companies' pension funds, they'd be placed in prison. The "privatization" plan proposed by Bush is merely an attempt by Wall Street brokerage firms and financial institutions to get in on the scam: grab a portion of a constant revenue stream (guaranteed by taxation) from which they can skim their commissions.
Daschle's "concern" over the Social Security system is a lie.
Bush's plan to Enronize the system is worse.
The American People need to wake up and put these liars and thieves in prison.
To: raisincane
I had to take out a loan against my 401K. So now I am paying myself back (with interest) but I am buying back all my shares at about 60% of what I sold them at.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
