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: CalculatedRisk who wrote (15223)	11/9/2004 1:04:23 PM
From: ild	Respond to of 116555

<<<When someone writes that "Steady continuous investment in a broad stock index has vastly outperformed government bonds over time" that is true>>> I've seen researches that said the opposite. It all depends when you buy and when you sell.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (15223)	11/9/2004 1:25:15 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 116555

Privatization is really desperation. SS can't pay out what it has promised. Never was a pension plan, just a suppliment and enacted when people barely lived 65 years. But, when you talk sensible things like cutting benefits or raising the age when you get it, you're politically crucified. No one can make the hard decisions so it's doomed to a bust.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (15223)	11/9/2004 1:44:07 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Why not just say that? It's not called the "third rail" for nothing. To make up for the shortfall, the Government will need to borrow at least $1 Trillion. The price tag to continue as is, is considerably higher. I'd pay a significant sum just to be allowed to opt out.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (15223)	11/9/2004 1:46:11 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

>>Second, calling this plan "privatization" is a fraud. It is a MASSIVE NEW government program of forced savings accounts. << This is true, but this "forced savings account" is under my own name, and I can see the money when I retire, unlike what we are doing now. I can bet I would be lucky to see 10%-20% of what I put in, maybe not even that much.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (15223)	11/9/2004 3:25:28 PM
From: upanddown	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

The pols yammering about SS in trouble never mention the reason for the trouble since they like to imply that the fault lies with the American people. Since Reagan jacked up SS taxes in 1983, there has been close to 2 trillion in SS taxes collected in excess of benefits paid. If that "Trust Fund" had been sacrosanct and had been invested in low-risk investments, it would have doubled at a minimum. We would have at least a 4 trillion balance in the SS trust fund and nobody would be talking about system failure. The politicians instead snatched it and spent every dime with a large portion of that SS surplus financing tax cuts for people with incomes well above SS income limits, currently $87,300. What is that other than income transfer.....upward? A nice way to improve SS finances and also get some of that money back would be to raise the current income limit of $87,300 to $1,000,000. Unfortunately, with the current administration, any tax proposal that has any negative impact on high incomes is a non-starter.