WS>>"Privatization" of Social Security Poses Risks

carl william spitzer iv cwsiv_2nd at JUNO.COM
Mon Aug 6 20:37:07 MDT 2001


If not individualized retirees will only be trading a government plan for
a politically connected NGO plan.  What would be the difference unless
the group plan idea is done away with alltogether.

CWSIV


On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:40:22 +0000 Thomas Matiska <tom.matiska at ATT.NET>
writes:
>It is no step.  The term "lock box" is political econo-
>babble of the worst kind.  If the current surplus of SS
>revenue continues to be "invested" in govt bonds, no
>problems are solved.  The only difference between the
>current "trust fund" and proposed "lock box" is they are
>spelled differently.  When 70 million boomers retire and
>the bonds in the "lock box" have to be redeemed on the
>back of  taxpayers, that difference in spelling won't
>matter.
>
>The system doesn't necessarily have to be
>individualized, but the investment must be shifted to
>the non govt sector.  Stocks, real estate, gold, of some
>combination thereof, but not govt bonds.
>
>Tom
>> Its a first step.  IMHO the only solution is total
>individualization.
>> make them all private and separate.
>>
>> This is the Chilian system.
>>
>> CWSIV
>>
>>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list