I don't think you are getting what my analysis is saying, John. Whether I plug in $17K or $30K, EVERYONE gets less in the current system vs the system I outlined. So from that perspective it works for everyone. There are many things about the current system that are good, though, that I'd like to keep: the tax free growth aspect (until withdrawal) and the lockbox aspect (can't withdraw until retirement age).
Now, the poor will still be poor and the rich, rich under the system I proposed, because it isn't a welfare system. But frankly, the current social security system pays less for everyone, regardless of their income. But everyone will get more under my system, because their investments will work harder for them. In addition, private accounts lock the gov't out of using the funds as part of their profligate spending plans.
As far as the polls, I'm afraid you are right. The Democrats won the press war on that one, which is unfortunate, because private accounts is the only permanent solution. But I still contend that if you don't make a system change mandated, but instead, you give people a choice, you will be surprised how many people choose private accounts over social security. The reason I believe this is that when push comes to shove, people prefer having a legal bird in hand (money tied to their social security number) rather than a gov't promise. |
