Moderator: Nicole Marie
The President has assured Americans that he will not change the Social Security system in any way for those born before 1950.
Social Security is sound for today’s seniors and for those nearing retirement, but it needs to be fixed for younger workers – our children and grandchildren. The government has made promises it cannot afford to pay for with the current pay-as-you-go system.
In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security.
Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary.
In 2008 – just three short years from now – baby boomers will begin to retire. And over the next few decades, people will be living longer and benefits are scheduled to increase dramatically. By the time today’s youngest workers turn 65, there will only be 2 workers supporting each beneficiary.
Under the current system, today’s 30-year-old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.
Personal retirement accounts would not be eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees.
Personal retirement accounts would be low-cost. The Social Security Administration’s
actuaries project that the ongoing administrative costs for a TSP-style personal account
structure would be roughly 30 basis points or 0.3 percentage points, compared to an average
of 125 basis points for investments in stock mutual funds and 88 basis points in bond mutual
funds in 2003. (http://www.ici.org/issues/fee/fm-v13n5).
• The low costs are made possible by the economies of scale of a centralized
administrative structure, as well as limiting investment options to a small number of
prudent, broadly diversified funds.
• Most of these administrative costs are for recordkeeping which would be done by the
government, not investment management done by Wall Street. (Report of the 1994-
1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, p. 171 & January 31, 2002 Memorandum
from the Social Security Actuary in the Final Report of the President’s Commission
on Social Security, p. 19).
Most of these administrative costs are for recordkeeping which would be done by the
It is this that all along has made me wonder why you are in favor of it. These costs are in addition to existing costs to manage SS.
Highly angered by our transformation into the Corporate States of America, yes, but afraid, no.
Shapley wrote:Corporations, at least, are composed of citizens, not agents of the government.
Corporations are driven by greed and profit...certainly not the best interest of either employees or the people (customer?) they serve.
Shapley wrote:That's a terrible stereotype.
jamiebk wrote: I will never encourage my kids to work for a large public corporation
Haggis@wk wrote:"Public Corporation" I agree, NPR and PBS are terrible....Oh, did you mean "Private Corporation"?
I assume from your tirade that you didn't qualify for stock options, bonuses, or other perks associated with the more profitable corporations?
piqaboo wrote:I'd prefer to see the gov offer an 'opt out' for SS, in which you could choose to put into the 'savings bank' 0 - 100% of the recommended deduction.
Investment of what you dont put into the 'savings bank' would be up to you. Costs would be yours.
SS benefits upon retirement would be prorated according to 'contributions'.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]