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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (26121)	12/17/2004 4:02:01 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

RE: "The current proposal is to permit younger workers to invest 2 percent of their income (or roughly 16 percent of their SS taxes) into investment accounts in exchange for a 40 percent reduction in their claims on future Social Security benefits. " Most Gen X and Gen Y would think that's a better deal than the current unreliable one. Current SS reductions for Gen X and Gen Y is well-known by financial advisors and the media to be 1/3 reduction of their benefits (i.e. Gen X and Gen Y receive only 2/3 benefits compared to the current generation ), but further reductions are actually likely. So a 40% reduction but with ownership of a portion your own funds, is a better deal than 33% reduction (with more reductions to come) without any ownership of your money. Hands down, Bush's deal is better for Gen X and Gen Y given the further reductions in store for Gen X and Gen Y, with the current SS. In the 1980s when in school, I went out with a group of economists from the various fed depts, of which one was handling the SS economic model for our country. From him I learned SS benefits would be cut for the younger generations and by how much. While this information is well-known today, back then it would have shocked people (there always were fears of cuts, but people denied it back then, and neither financial advisors nor the media indicated any reduction figure). In fact, people like him would have gotten fired if word of the cut (and amount) had leaked out to the media. They keep these guys away from the media, while the pollyanna spokesperson handles the media. So, I had a great advantage by knowing what was in store for this country decades ahead of other people, it simply made me save lots of money for retirement early in life. How lucky someone told me early in life when I was in my teens. Meanwhile, about a decade later, Fidelity investments for the first time started using a reduced SS benefit estimate for their clients. So, a decade later the information finally made it's way out to the public - it actually took an act of Congress to make this happen (the spokesperson at SS had to get congressional approval before making public the reduction figure. Amazing how it was kept a secret for ten years. The public obvious doesn't like to hear bad news and clearly resists it.) But the number the financial houses had started to use wasn't as aggressive as what it needed to be. Again, I had the advantage by knowing the actual figure, it simply motivated me to save more money earlier in life. How unfortunate others from my generation didn't have this information earlier in life - what a disservice our govt has done by hiding this information from them for decades. Eventually, the financial advisors finally reduced estimates further to what is now today's generally accepted 2/3 benefit figure, a well-known figure by now in the media. While the well-known figure of 2/3 benefit (33% reduction) finally matches the figure that was well-known by the SS economists way back in the 1980s almost two decades ago, but it probably doesn't match the current SS's economic model of today (which some economists have floated as 40% to 50%). But let's be optomistic for a moment, and assume the benefits are only 2/3, just to prove the following point: Today, everyone knows SS for Gen X and Gen Y will be cut to at least 2/3, what would Gen X and Gen Y prefer: Option #1) Make no change to SS and possibly receive 2/3 benefits or less. This means Gen X and Gen Y have an extremely loose promise of receiving 2/3 of today's benefits that may possibly be reduced even further to what is rumored to be 40%, in exchange for making no change to the current SS program. Keep in mind, the govt takes Gen X and Gen Y money and controls it so the govt may reduce benefits even further than 1/3 - the govt controls your funds, not you. Option #2) Make a change to SS by letting Gen X and Gen Y put 2% of their income into privatization where the govt cannot touch your money. For the first time in Gen X and Gen Y's lives, they actually are guaranteed something as they control some of their money not the govt whose whims can change. You see, Gen X and Gen Y have witnessed in their lifetimes a promise of 100% benefits only to have the govt break its promise by reducting benefits to only 2/3 of today's retires. So, Why would a Gen X or Gen Y believe they will get any benefit at all, given the current track record of the baby boomer-dominated Congress history of stealing from the younger generation? So, at the end of the day, Gen X and Gen Y have a promise to get back some of their money back. Not true with the current system. This is why Gen X and Gen Y will gladly welcome Bush's proposal - it at least guarantees they get some of their money back, rather than none with a bunch of broken promises from a spendaholic Congress. Hands down, the 40% reduction in benefits but with a guarantee to control a portion of your funds is a much better deal, than today's 33% reduction with NO control over any of your own money and further reductions. Gen X and Gen Y have witnessed our SS esimates being reduced during our lifetimes. Baby Boomers have not. This is why you will see a huge generational gap between the boomers and the younger generation. The younger generation is more than happy to take their money and control it so they get some of it back. Given a 33# reduction is already in place for Gen X and Gen Y, a 40% reduction is nothing when you are given self-control of a portion your own funds - you at least are ensured of getting something back. Meanwhile, the 33# reduction comes with a pipefilled list of babyboomer-controlled-congressional promises and further reductions. So, Privatization is an obvious choice for a Gen X and Gen Y. Regards, Amy J

To: Les H who wrote (26121)	12/17/2004 6:15:32 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Oh how unbelievable and hilariously funny! Bush is offering a 16% reduction in Social Security taxes in exchange for a 40% reduction in future Social Security benefits. I'm sure almost all of the short-sighted moles who voted for Bush are also stupid enough to fall for this lopsided offer. Such a fitting punishment! How Biblical! Just like Issac and Easau, I bet they'd sell their birthright for a hearty dinner of stew. Never give a sucker an even break. To top it off it looks like this scheme only gives the government a 1.76% at best. Horrific financial mismanagement all around. .