Burnt Orange Report

"Private Accounts" are a bad idea. Even if you were to try investing tax revenue into private sources- corporate welfare- why would you invest it in the riskiest of all places- the stock market? The whole thing is a scam.

Knowing W. and his adoring masses, they just may pull it off.

Great plan we've got. Our money never doubles after the age of 27. That's such a good investment for our retirement. If this money isn't for our retirement, then lets get rid of it. Why create false hopes that there will be something there in 2024 or 2054, when we retire.

2% return on money sent to Social Security. Lets try something else, can't do much worse than 2%. Whether its the market or mutual funds or real estate or gold, something else. And lets be able to pass it along to the children.

Peter, the last thing we should worry about is passing on inheritance. In fact, given the choice, I'd like to see the estate tax be fully restored and the funding diverted to social security.

Social Security is about maintaining the dignity and quality of life of the aged, not about "building wealth."

If a private company took money from its employees and put it in a trust and then decided to borrow from that trust with IOU's and then decided it could not pay the trust back, those folks would go to jail. (in a perfect world)

The Congress of the US and the President has borrowed from the Social Security surplus. They now do not want to pay the surplus back. It is as simple as that.

What kind of dignity and quality of life will an average joe have, living off a percentage of say $90,000 for say 15 to 20 years? Thats below the poverty line right now. Remember the ALGORE campaign, about the top 5% paying 80% of all taxes? To be a member of the top 5%, all you need to do is make more than $100,000. as a household. That means the rest of us, people making less, make up the remaining 20% of taxes. That means that the rest of us are not going to have a whole lot accumulated in Social Security in the first place. You get statements every year, do you look at them? Not a whole lot there. One says that people should be making other investments to retire on. How is that possible when the cost of living is so high? When taxes are so high? 38.5 cents on each gallon of gas, double/triple/quad taxation on many goods at the store.

You guys say let the rich pay for it. What 80% is not enough? Why work if you're rich? Little incentive if the government is going to take most of it away. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Several of BOR went to the convention up there and saw the sites. How are the rich suppose to carry the rest of us on their backs? Ms Heinz-Kerry paid 12.5% tax rate...$5 million, everything made in excess of $80,000. does not get taxed by Social Security, no set asides for those making more. The maximum dollars placed into Social Security is what $432,000. for those at the the top levels. Thats a nice number, but 85% of us will never see that much. Realistically we may see between $80K and $160K in our account.

Now lets remember that we're about to have a big number of us at retirement age in the next 20 years. This is going to deplete the surpluses that we've had for many years rapidly. Social Security will be upside down soon, in Byron's lifetime. We need to get more return for our bucks. 2% is pitiful, and just doesn't compound very well, Rule of 72 you know. If we're able to find a vehicle to up that to 4-6%, that would be much better. This is where privatizing comes in. I'm not talking about dot.com stuff. Lets restrict this part of investment into what many 401K plans call their most conservative funds/stocks/bonds. And lets make this an ownership thing, to pass on to your children if anything is left over when we pass. Let your children inherit what you have left, just like the house/mortgage. Might make things a little easier on them. Soon they might not even need to draw any Social Security at all, leave whatever is in SS for the needy.

You say people should be responsible for their own retirement. What if they aren't?

What if they aren't?

Dignity?

Quality of life?

Wasn't FDR's answer...a Social Security account for EVERYBODY? So we, our government, can take care of our aged. Make them comfortable after they have toiled for so so long.

I would just like to point out to Nancy that the IOW analogy is flawed for one simple reason, the IOUs are in the form of Treasury bonds. When it comes time to cash those in in 2018, the govt. will not default on the payment to those bonds, it can't. As long as the US govt still exists those bonds will be as good as having the greenbacks in your wallet. The plan was to raise income taxes (the progressive one) to pay for it. That's how Greenspan set it up.

The whole point of Social Security is that you will get that money. If the govt doesn't give you the money then it is breaking the law and you can sue them for it. You get no such assurance on private accounts and the stock market.

Nate - I agree the IOU's are Treasury Bonds. But the government still spent the money and now their idea of fixing it is to let the American people cover the loans for them. Had they borrowed from another source, they would not be screaming that SS needed to be fixed.

Visit the commentary over at "Washington Monthly" and help fight the repug propanda machine. I've been hearing the SS bankkruptcy claim, off and on, for about the past 30 years or so. Bull.