Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (196485)	8/2/2004 12:02:29 PM
From: brian1501	Respond to of 1580838

The only problem I have is that you still need a safety net. In this society we don't want people running out of money at 90 when they might live to be 95. I agree, there should be some guaranteed minimum that would be payable from the general treasury to handle the cases of catastrophic loss etc. Make FICA 10%, put 5% into the current SS "trust", and 5% into self managed accounts. Limit or eliminate the SS for the very wealthy. I'm mostly ok with that. I'd like more to go to the private plan. The current people that have paid in to SS will have to be handled as a large budget item, but going forward people should have to depend on the privately invested portion. I'd like to phase out the current plan as quickly as possible. What if somebody really needs the money from the self managed account? For surgery, or another dire emergency? Current SS doesn't handle this situation, and I wouldn't want these "pseudo-private" plans to either. There are other savings vehicles that could be hit for those. If you allow people to borrow against it, you'd end up needing that guaranteed minimum more than you should. It would open another can of worms. I think this would be a great compromise to the existing SS. The money isn't quite the governments and it isn't quite yours either, but grows at much better than 2%. Brian