Gee, Chile managed. And has for quite a while now.
Everyone over thirty must start smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day.
Warren Spieker: “I must respond to Jon R. who writes in today’s column ‘...the system is taking in more money than it needs to pay benefits. End of story.’ This may be the end of the story for Jon, but, as a young worker, it isn't for me. The CBO (neutral third party) has stated that without changes the system will be out of funds somewhere around 2042-2052.”
Yes! But at that point, with two workers for each retiree, the CBO estimates you will get 75% or so of the promised benefit. (More than the “two-thirds” you might intuitively expect with two workers instead of three, but remember that with three we currently overshoot the needs by $200 billion a year.) So the system will be out of excess funds in 40 or 50 years, but even if we did nothing – and I do think some small tweaks should be made now to fix the eventual shortfall – you would still get 75% of what’s been promised. And many believe that 75% of this promised amount will likely be more than 100% of what retirees get today. If we do nothing!
(The reason 75% of the promised amount may be more than what retirees get today – even after allowing for inflation—is that initial benefits are tied to wage inflation, which is commonly expected to outpace the cost of living – though I worry it may not.)
No one should fall for the scare tactics.
In my view, today’s young workers should demand fiscal responsibility from their government (no huge tax cuts for the rich in the midst of a war, when we’re running deficits and having to take cops off the street) . . . they should embrace the current system (slightly tweaked) both as their way of helping the parents and grandparents who raised them (it’s part of life’s bargain), but also as a bare bones safety net that they, too, will benefit from someday . . . they should rejoice that the retirement system in America is already largely privatized (IRAs, SEPs, SIMPLEs, Keogh Plans, 401Ks, 403Bs) . . . and they should absolutely contribute to those private accounts, because if they don’t, they’ll have only Social Security to retire on, and as any retiree will tell you, if that’s all you’ve got, it’s a tough life.
Women already lose in the current system.
I worked full time from the time I graduated from college until my son was born (approx. 13 years).
I quit working to be a stay at home mom and homeschooler, and those 16 years out of the workforce took me back to square one.
Now he's in college, I've gone back to work, but I'm basically starting over when it comes to Social Security and Social Security disability credits.
OK, I admit that I didn't read the article yet, I will go back and do it next. But, I have to call bull$hit on this right now. Because women live longer and fulfill caretaker rolls more often is precisely the reason that the reform will HELP them more. As the SS systems stands right now, a widow has the choice of receiving either her own SS or that of her husband, NOT BOTH. My sister-in-law is in this situation, they both had paid in the maximum amount each year they worked, but since he died before collecting any of it, she can only collect on the one, the other is lost completely.
Under this reform, the husband/wife can pass on their private accounts to each other, or their children upon their death, unlike SS. How can anyone say that it would NOT benefit women more???
Women are generally more risk averse than men. When Al Gore referred to SS partial privitization as a "risky scheme" he was speaking to the female portion of our electorate.
Thought you might be interested - PING
World to end tomorrow, women and minorities hardest hit.
As if this was some God given or constitutional right? I wish life came with guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income for life. But then what would force us to build character?
In the absence of any existing Social Security program, imagine you were getting this bullet-point pitch from a financial services firm:
1. Send us 12.4% of your gross income, for the span of your entire working life.How would any thinking adult respond to such a proposition? By hanging up the phone. Or, if the salesman is on your front porch, by siccing the dogs on him. Then calling the Better Business Bureau and reporting the charlatan.2. We won't be investing the money. We'll be spending it. We'll put an IOU in your account, though.
3. Those accumulated IOUs will earn the equivalent of about 1% interest (compounded). We reserve the right to reduce benefits in the future, though, so you're real rate of return may actually be a negative.
4. When you turn 65, we won't give you the option of taking a lump sum settlement. Instead, you'll be forced to buy an annuity that will provide you with a modest monthly income (that's computed in a way only we understand).
5. Understand the IOUs in that account aren't really yours. If you die before you turn 65, or if there is anything left in that annuity when you die, you can't leave the proceeds to your estate. We keep it.
6. Understand also that the program is inherently doomed over the long run, since the demographics won't allow us to sustain the sales necessary to maintain the current level of benefits. At some point, we're going to run out of money.
7. No, you don't have any choice in the matter. If you're an American wage earner, you're automatically enrolled. Sign right here. And you won't even have to send us a check -- we'll have the employer deduct your payments and send the money direct to us.
Now, Bush comes along and actually wants to offer some improvements to that dreadful proposition. And the Democrats don't want to change it?
We're not really that dumb, are we?
You have no right to demand that white women make arrangements for their own retirement.
Elderly white women have an absolute right to the dignity and independence guarenteed to them by having the government forcibly taking money from poor black men (who don't need retirement money, because, after all, they are going to die young anyway).
(/sarcasm)
Unless the economy gets into a prolonged funk, the sheer power of compounded interest over significantly longer ladies' life expectancy [assuming investment in a broad index fund] would make it impossible to lose.
Married women would be screwed the most. After all, after their husband dies and they get his private account they will really be out of luck!
Aren't private acounts better, given what this article states, because they can inherit their husbands account, rather than rely on survivor benefits at a reduced rate?
Want to talk about me, want to talk about I, want to talk about number one o-me, o-my what I want, what I like - what I need.
Hold on, every group will now be telling us why letting the government destroy our lives is more important.
Notice they did not say women are better at managing money then men so they can take care of themselves but only the government should do it. Course our wives tell us they are better then us men in this department.
This e-mail I am responding to is brought to you by a selfish and incapapable special interest.
This fits perfectly an "activists" definition of "reform". It certainly is not a rhetorically neutral definition.
This femenist dingbat, at least, defines the terms in her universe before proceeding.
Perhaps a more universal definition, however, is to change or to modify something so it doesn't crash and burn; so it can continue functioning at all.