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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (15210)	11/9/2004 10:21:25 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

A privatized Social Security that doesn't follow the Australian model creates problems similar to those who do not maintain health insurance and automobile insurance. If they don't experience any large losses, they gain by not paying premiums. If they experience a large loss, the cost is placed onto society at large. Heads I win, tails you all lose. Another example is Switzerland which has private health insurance rather than nationalized health care. Private health insurance is mandatory in Switzerland under pain of fines and imprisonment. Those who truly can demonstrate the liquid assets to go without insurance can do so. Although many qualify, few think this is reasonable. More than 99% of the Swiss are insured under private medical insurance plans. switzerland.isyours.com As a consequence their premiums are at least 50% less costly than in America. In America, those with health insurance indirectly pay for the care of the uninsured. .

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (15210)	11/9/2004 11:31:49 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 116555

First, I would like to see a real discussion of the issues surrounding Social Security. When someone writes that "Steady continuous investment in a broad stock index has vastly outperformed government bonds over time" that is true, BUT it has nothing to do with Social Security. All the money that goes into the SS Trust Fund is either paid out as a transfer payment or goes to the General Fund and is spent. These is no "return" or investment. So this is a false comparison. Second, calling this plan "privatization" is a fraud. It is a MASSIVE NEW government program of forced savings accounts. This plan is being used as subterfuge to cut benefits for those currently 55 and under (according to leaked reports) by up to 40% depending on their age. Why not just say that? Third, the immediate cost of the program is between $1 and $2 Trillion. The proposal is to take 2% of taxable income and put this into forced savings accounts. The remaining 10.4% of taxable income would be used for transfer payments (both the employer and the employee currently pay 6.2% of taxable income for Social Security). To make up for the shortfall, the Government will need to borrow at least $1 Trillion. We are already in serious trouble due to the poor fiscal policies of the last four years. Why do we want to take on more debt for yet another massive government program?