No, I said that wrong. The official DemocRAT party line is that only HIGHER PAYROLL TAXES are needed to save the old system. They're ambivalent about private accounts, so long as they're added to, not instead of, any part of the old Ponzi Scheme.
Good post, thanks. I hope this idea passes Congress THIS YEAR. It's clearly too late for my husband and me to benefit, but it would mean a lot to our grown children and growing grandchildren.
BTW, don't Congresscritters have a retirement plan like this? Don't government employees?
The best S.S. reform is to kill it. 100% ALL of it.
Opponents often claim when the stock market falls it will hurt those with partial privatized accounts. Of course they leave the word "partial" out because they are dishonest. With the onset of the Clinton recession the overall value of my mutual funds were down because the stock prices were down. The share price was down, I was buying all through the Clinton recession and getting many more shares for my investment.
When the economy and stock market recovered during the Bush recovery the share price went up and I had many more shares so the value of my mutual funds were greatly enhanced. During the good times I am payed divedends which go to purchase more shares.
Someone should point this out to the naysayers, if the stock market goes down it's good for the investor buying in. The retirement account will allow only a certain amount to of shares to be sold at a time, like any other retirement account. There can be no wholesale selling off, hence a huge loss. It's a win, win unless you again get the liberals back in power attacking the producers, innovators and achievers.
"... Any Social Security plan should include voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amount received in old age. ... Government funding ought to be ultimately supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
FDR didn't get his way then.
This needs repeating often. SS was never intended, by FDR, to last.
Most of these articles, even the positive ones, fail to consider compounding. That makes the privitization picture much brighter.
As Dick Armey recently quipped to Paul Krugman on a recent television debate: let's see Krugman's investment portfolio and determine if he has his own 401Ks and investments in the "risky" stock market. There is no doubt that he does, yet it is "too risky" for the regular schmuck.
He never did answer Armey's question, by the way. He only said "I have done rather well."
A classic case of "do as I say, not as I do" by Krugman and the other hypocritical socialists.