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: Amy J who wrote (213540)	12/18/2004 5:40:02 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575765

I once looked into buying land in Costa Rica through my IRA, but the fees were in the 3% of assets range/yr just to hold the title and do the necessary governmental reporting. A fee of 1%/yr of assets used to be quite common, but the fees are generally lower these days. I agree about the IRA's in general. I'd rather see SS left alone, with an increase allowed for IRA contributions/yr that are deductible. Anyone that contributes > xx/yr to IRA's then gets reduced SS benefits at retirement. The formula could account for contributions on a yearly basis, it does not have to be and "in" or "out" thing, but cumulative for ones career.

To: Amy J who wrote (213540)	12/18/2004 7:40:47 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575765

It's unconsciousable they would force citizens to hand over their money to WS to manage, rather than have the option to manage it yourself like an IRA. Amy, you contradict yourself. You want empowerment and that is what Bush is trying to give you. However, he knows that Democrats will never allow an IRA style privatization plan. The best he'll be able to do is take baby steps towards IRA style privatization in the very long term. The first baby step has to be something that will get enough Democratic votes to allow it to happen. Thus the $1K pittance. The other problem with your post is that you are complaining about WS getting 1% of your money. Well, if WS is earning you 7-8% on your money, you still get to keep the other 6-7%, or 3-4% after inflation. Or you could stick with the gov't plan, which gives you ZERO empowerment and only a 2% return, or -1% after inflation. Seems like a no brainer financially as well as from an empowerment perspective. If you think Bush is retro, you need to start asking the Democrats why they think that no changes are necessary. They want to continue the current socialist system of taking your money and not letting you have any control over it, while redistributing your contributions to today's retirees. That's not a very good alternative.