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: TimF who wrote (225815)	3/22/2005 6:20:03 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571808

re: If you have a private account than the amount the government has to pay you in the future is reduced. So the governments future obligation for social security payments is reduced. The governments future obligation for principle and interest payments is increased but not necessarily by a greater amount than the future obligation for SS payments is reduced. Hence my original statement. "There is no particular reason to think that the interest will be higher than the reduction in the obligation." Of course there is. The reduction in the payments will be matched by the reduction in the benefits. A wash. IN THE MEANTIME, there is the incremental transition cost, which is what everyone (except you) is talking about. It's estimated to be $5Trillion, plus 50 years interest, and that's assuming that at the out end things balance, and private accounts actually work. There is every reason to believe that the interest will be higher than the reduction in obligation (plus the principle).