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: Road Walker who wrote (217859)	2/7/2005 12:02:10 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571680

>Depending on the details, I suspect they will only recommend private accounts for the very wealthy and for those under 30 years old. If at all. For the very wealthy, why don't they just give them private accounts for money over the $90,000 bar? -Z

To: Road Walker who wrote (217859)	2/7/2005 9:08:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571680

re: In any whether social security goes in to a protracted deficit and spends all the trust fund money or not really isn't an issue. Too much will be spent on it whether or not the trust fund becomes exhausted. I don't think the public shares this view. If we could continue the current program without "going broke" as Bush claims, most people would support that. I'll make one change to my statement. "Whether social security goes in to a protracted deficit and spends all the trust fund money or not really is only an issue for political rhetoric. It isn't a substantial issue for the viability of the program. If you tell people "the social security system will not go broke" I suspect many people will say "great" and either won't care much about reform or even oppose it (assuming they believe your statement). If however you tell them that taxes will have to be raised to continue social security, and give them some idea of how high they will have to be raised if we do not change benefits in any way, then you will probably only get support for the status quo from a minority of those not in or nearing retirement. I'd like to see some personal account system. I think it is a good idea, but what is more important in the long run is to contain the cost. If we have to ditch the private accounts in order to create some retirement age indexing or other change to contain costs I might support the trade off. Tim