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: RetiredNow who wrote (213522)	12/18/2004 2:33:43 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575399

RE: " on to more interesting and personally meaningful debates: Social Security!" This is an interesting observation by Paul Krugman (below). Am for making changes to SS, but Krugman's analysis does give pause - he's saying the management fees would be 20% instead of the current 1%. If true, then a definite roadblock: "More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems. These fees cut sharply into the returns individuals can expect on their accounts." "A reasonable prediction for the real rate of return on personal accounts in the U.S. is 4 percent or less. If we introduce a system with British-level management fees, net returns to workers will be reduced by more than a quarter. Add in deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and a big increase in risk, and we're looking at a "reform" that hurts everyone except the investment industry." nytimes.com Why wouldn't it be like an IRA, where you manage it yourself?