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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (644)	6/14/2005 1:12:40 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 541526

I don't see how it can be construed as forced saving is you aren't saving anything for your retirement but giving money to be used to pay current retirees. If there's no account balance, then there's no savings, seems to me. There's a tax used for wealth redistribution. "People have been inherently shortsighted since the onset of Social Security." If it were up to me, we'd phase out SS and replace it with a welfare-level system. I said the idea of saving fo retirement sold Social Security. It was never designed to be anything but paygo. Probably less than 10% of our population will voluntarily save enough for retirement. I think it would be much more charitable to have a plan where people were forced to save for their own retirements. President Bush has proposed transitioning to such a plan. I suggested a plan that does that. IMO we need ot do something to start moving in the direction of sustainable retirements.