What I have learned about SS private accounts

[Eagler]

I do not think SS will be there for me as it stands now when I hit 72 or will that be 76/80/82??  

what can be worse than that?

I would like it if they stopped stealing my money NOW and let me handle it and my retirement. ANY change is a step in the right direction to me

[JB88]

right.  but doesnt the motive seem even slightly suspect eagler?

[Sabre]

Originally posted by JB88
right.  but doesnt the motive seem even slightly suspect eagler?

Why? As noted, President Bush is not the first president to suggest reforming SS, or the inclusion of some sort of private accounts.  What's being proposed (and in no way it's final form) is essentially what Congress and a million and a half federal employees currently are allowed to participate in.  There is no discussion of "dismantling" SS, as the article boldy declares, but of finding ways to insure it's continued viability.  I have a volutary investment program with my company, where I can invest up to 15% of my gross (tax deferred).  They also match $0.75 on the dollar up to 8% of my gross.  The return this last year was almost 5% (not counting the "free money" dollar-matching).  I choose the most conservative of the fund options, in terms of both risk and return on investment.

The main thing is, you can't wait for SS to collapse to begin reforming it.  Bottom line: it's my money, and I want as much control over it as possible.  Personally, I'd sign over any right to collect SS today if it meant I didn't have to pay anything more into it, for the reasons Eagler points out.  And I'm 43 years old.

[Dago]

It should be noted that the Minneapolis StarTribune is one of the most democratic liberal anti-Bush rags that disquises itself as a newspaper in the nation.

Many in the Minneapolis area call it "The Star and Sickle".  So, don't expect complete accuracy and honest, certainly not support for any Bush program.  

I don't know if the article is correct or not, but I certainly don't take it on faith.

dago

[oboe]

I get the feeling nobody is reading about the details of the plan.

First, its not YOUR money.   Once the government collected that SS tax, its THEIR money.    They are willing to loan it back to you at 3%, in return for a cut to your guaranteed benefits.   So you keep whatever profit you make over and above the 3%, less the benefit cuts, and fees and admin charges associated with your private account.    And it also sounds like your fund choices are limited to goverenment approved or controlled funds.

Sabre mentioned earning 5% on his conservative investment.    I wonder if the 2% excess would cover his benefit cuts?  I doubt it.
Seems to me people who are willing to give up guaranteed benefits and assume this much risk deserve a better deal.

I think I'd rather see SS fixed by a combination of raising the cap and means testing, and expansion of the existing IRA programs than private accounts the way they are currently proposed.

[TweetyBird]

Its not rocket science. You have this huge cash cow and the government wants to put some of that money in the hands of private companies in an effort to increase American prosperity - in other words , corporate welfare. They want you to keep those nice financial advisers in business by having you pay them to manage part of your social security fund. So remember, before you figure how much of a return you are going to have to make to break even, make sure you account for overhead like managment fees.

But we should rush into this because W tells us the sky is falling...

[Eagler]

recieved my SS statement last week

first time it has ever stated that by 2042 my payback will be 3/4's of what it projected in the statement, if I am lucky

I see it as a way of investing in the country, not the gov

Was shown that if the same investment for the past 35 years in SS which produced < $150,000 would have yielded over $500,000 if invested in the stockmart over the same time period

give me the choice with MY money

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
But we should rush into this because W tells us the sky is falling...

Oh boy yet another bogus Bush lied claim
Clinton made the same claim. Nobody wanted to hear it then either.

Fact is SS is going to go broke.
A large chunk of the money the naysayers claim SS has is on paper only in the form of Gov IOU's because the government has for years and years now been borrowing from the surplus that was there. Which it is supposed to pay back with interest.

Well when the time comes to pay up the money will have to come from somewhere and guess who gets to pay for all those IOU's

Problem with this is it is going to be considerably more expensive to do something about it later then now.

Its a case of do you fix the dying oil pump now or do you wait till the engine seizes?

In any event we are only talking about a small percentage of your SS funds that would be allowed for private investment. And as I heard one financial analyst put it. You would make more money keeping that money in a regular bank account then you will in SS.

Add to that its voluntary which means if you dont like the idea you dont have to do it. But you have that choice.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by LePaul
 

But right now, the left is trying to insist "What problem?".

 

because they are trying to count money that is there on paper only.

Really this is typical partisan political BS

Clinton wanted to do something and the right was against it. now Bush wants to do something and the left is against it.

Typical Washington at its very best

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Eagler


give me the choice with MY money

"Choice" being the operative word.

Personally I fail to see the problem with this concept.
If you want to you can. If you dont. You dont have to.