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: combjelly who wrote (380129)	4/24/2008 5:03:34 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578162

>>> It is a big argument for privatization. Insurance companies can get by with only 14-16%. Again, you can get by with 1% administration expense if you don't have to be competent at the job. Private enterprise certainly would cost more to administer the fund. But SSA would not be flat out broke, which it currently is, had it been managed by private enterprise -- particularly if said private enterprise had a stake in the outcome. Sometimes, you get what you pay for. Also, it is important to remember that far and away the most expensive administrative cost for SSA is borne by other agencies (i.e., IRS is responsible for the collection of the tax, not SSA). Private pension fund managers who managed a fund the way SSA has been managed would be jailed.