The new Social Security?

Leslie

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
WASHINGTON — One new proposal emerging from the national debate on how to overhaul Social Security could make every American a millionaire at age 65.



Paul O'Neill, President Bush's first treasury secretary and a former chief executive officer of aluminum giant Alcoa, proposes having the government stake every American baby at birth to an investment savings account. By the time the child retires, the account would contain $1 million or more. The idea is drawing attention from an unusual coalition of lawmakers from both parties, liberals as well as conservatives. This is how it would work:



• Upon each child's birth, the government opens an investment savings account in his or her name and puts $2,000 into it. The government puts another $2,000 into the account every year until the child turns 18. The money then would be left to grow at a compounded rate until the individual reaches the retirement age of 65. • Assuming a 6 percent continuously compounding rate of return over 65 years, money in the account would exceed $1 million. The money would be put into a 20-year annuity paying about $82,000 a year.



• Assuming 4 million births annually, O'Neill estimates it would cost about $144 billion to fund accounts for each year's babies for 18 years. • After 65 years, this would eliminate any need for Social Security since all Americans would retire rich. His plan doesn't address funding the system's current projected shortfalls.

"It's a way to think about creating financial security for the entire population and growing into it," O'Neill said. "It hastens the pace to convert the whole society into what I think is a hell of a lot more equitable system."
Click to expand...
I love it :D

link
 
It is sad that someone in government could,
with a straight face, actually propose such a thing.
 
The word Social should be taken out of the phrase.

If "Social" security was totally fixed, we'd probably then be a socialist gov. :lol2:

I think it should be divided into to parts. The people that paid in, and the
people that did pay anything much.

The people that paid in most their life, get the option to invest, atleast part
of what they paid in.

For people that didn't pay in hardly anything, if anything, get a second
"pool" made up of "donors only", and all the people that want to contribute can. (like a charity)
 
I'm all for the option to get out if you want, and being allowed to use that money to fund your own retirement account. I can beat the government's rate of return all day long.

They can keep every dime I've paid in to this point, just let me out and gimme my money, force me to invest it toward retirement, then get out of the way while I count the dividends.
 
Yeah see this is what I've never liked about it.
The gov. claims to be capitalistic, but then forces people to help other people
with this program. (that's socialism, hence the "social")
and
Even with the new plans (i've heard so far) forces people to do a certain
thing with the money. It you're money "so they say" so why can you do
anything you want to with it.
I just can't stand the "the gov knows better than the average person" thing.
 
What I'm hearing is that the private accounts, as envisioned now, would give you the option of several mutual funds, just like a 401k would. That's fine by me.

Average long term annual S&P 500 return = about 11%
Average finds return within social security = about 5.5%
My years to retirement = about 20.

You do the math.

What I can't understand is the pricetag they're putting on the conversion. This isn;t rocket science. WTF is gonna cost $754 BILLION over the next ten years?
 
yep that's the other major problem with it.
It (the plan now) never figured the inflation rate right.
Hell on the application they only ask for the last 15yrs on employment.
I paid in some pretty good money before that. :confused:
 
HomeLAN said:
What I can't understand is the pricetag they're putting on the conversion. This isn;t rocket science. WTF is gonna cost $754 BILLION over the next ten years?
Click to expand...

The Boomers begin siphoning off monies next year. The curreent over 65 crowd is approx 40,000,000. In 20 years, it'll be 80,000,000. The argument is, if 2-4% is pulled from the SSA, just as the recipient factor starts growing, it begins "costing" us. What they fail to realize is, right now, there is more going in than going out. By about a third.

I still favor ending the SSA immediately. Those older than 49 get to receive a full check. Those lower on the totem pole, to about 35, quit paying into the system & get progressively smaller checks...depending on age. If we spend 30-40 years eating the burden & put the lesson, in BOLD print, in every history book & add a Constitutional amendment that says the gov't is not in the retirement savings business, we may get out of this alive.
 
"we may get out of this alive."

I know what's gonna happen.

A second American Revolution.

One day in the future the kids in my Son's generation
are going to stand up and say:
"you ain't taking 105% of my paycheck"

Mark my werds, yo.
 
If they would just pay me back in a lump sum, all that I've paid in, and make
it tax free, I'd be set. :D (oh, and even minus what I've already drawn)
 
Hell, if it'd get the monkey off my back, I'd begrugingly forefeit my 25 years worth of taxes to have it go away.
 
I'd give up the 36K they've stolen from me
to be free for the rest of my life.

lessee the SSI runs like 7.5% times two with the employer
matching throw the Fed taxes and medicare of between 28 to 32% and at the top rate you are looking at:

15 + 32 + state income taxes and you are looking at well over 50% even before you take into account the sales and hidden taxes.

Is that number I heard bandied about of 2.75 trillion for the new federal budget real?
 
That sounds like what I heard for the upcoming fiscal crisi....err, year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top