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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (10039)	3/13/2005 9:00:57 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362297

How will a person will be able to pass on the money they have accumulated to someone after their death. I don't know all the details, I didn't even know his plan had been fully explained yet.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (10039)	3/14/2005 12:25:04 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362297

I suggest you look at the fine print. Only a very few of the children of beneficiaries of the private accounts will qualify to "inherit", mostly the children of the already well off. I have no problem with private accounts. I have two myself. I was under the impression that SS was an "insurance" program (not a retirement program), and was one leg of the "three legged stool" of retirement, consisting of SS, company and/or personal retirement plans and savings. Of the three, the most solid (until Bush) seemed to be SS. I don't feel private accounts should be a "carve out" of SS, which can be "saved" by some adjustments. I have no problem with a new program that helps poor people establish accounts. Bush seems worried mainly about when the government has to start paying back the IOU's - he wants to welch. Clinton wanted to invest the SS surplus, but the Republicans shot it down. Clinton's way, investing the surplus in ONE account with the profits divided among the recipients, would have been much cheaper fee- wise. One thing I'm liking about this SS flap is that it's hilighting the FICA cap, which most people don't even know exists. It seems to me, there should be no cap - if anything, there should be a floor below which you can still receive benefits, but don't have to pay a tax.