 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:17
|
|
quote: But how many people have the discipline and means to do that? |
Lots. Remember that Social Security itself taxes a $50k earner $6,375 a year off the top (not even taking into account the fact that earnings rise each year). Then it provides them with quite substandard return on investment.
In addition to those funds, almost half of workers contribute to 401(k) plans. Indeed, workers are sitting on a $2 trillion nest egg already with the 401(k)s. Also, there is about $3 trillion sitting in IRAs.
Last edited by DanS on 08-12-2004 at 00:26
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:17
|
|
With my 401(k), I can adjust the percentage of my salary put in (0-20%, IIRC), and I can decide how to allocate my money amongst a group of funds (there are probably about 15 of them). I can move the money that's already there around, as well as adjusting where the money that goes in in the future will be allocated. At this point, given the changes to the funds (new funds come in, old funds are kept although you can't put more money in... etc), my money is spread out across a lot of funds.
I'm not aware of an option that allows me to micromanage my 401(k) via something like e-trade, but honestly I don't want that. I don't have the taste for that sort of investment. I'd rather spread my money out in the available funds, aiming for a mixture that provides me with moderate risk... and leave it there for a few decades. Fire 'n forget. As such, I may make less money that people who micromanage (or rather, those who actually know how to do that properly), but that's ok.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:17
|
|
Did you read the OP?
The point of the whole thread was that the system as it was designed, speically after the tax increases in the early 80's created a system that was viable well beyond your death-and Krugman's point was that even once the surplus was gone, a relatively small amount of general fund money would allow the system to keep going.
What Oerdin brought up was that the problem today is not how the system was created, but the fact that the government, like many corporations have done, dipped into the retirement fund to finance various projects, including Bush's tax cuts. If the system is in danger, its because the Congresses since the surplus began to rise and the Presidents of this time allowed the Trust fund to be used for other things.
Again, the point of the OP is that the myth that the SS system is broken is that, a myth- fault a profligate gov. for raiding the fund. Privatization, which will add vast new costs and worsen the problem of government spending, won't help.
Some people just hate the very notion of Social Security.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:17
|
|
This is a really ironic discussion. The left is defending the status quo, meaning that regressive labor taxation will have to be increased over the coming years. The right is proposing a system that will alleviate the burden on the less well-to-do while giving them "a piece of the rock." For the transition period, Bush is partially proposing borrowing money, which will fall against the next generation's rich people -- i.e., the richer half of the country who pay all of the income taxes.
The left should be all for this plan, like Moynihan was.
Last edited by DanS on 08-12-2004 at 02:45
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|