RE: Archer/Shaw Social Security Guarantee Plan and Concerns of Younger Workers

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<<
These are excellent points. There are many opportunities in place
and more likely to come to give younger and middle income workers
a chance to invest in private equities. I have worked actively on
several major initiatives in this area (one good example is the
IRA tax credit I've introduced, H.R. 226) and believe it's highly
important. But, all stock market investment comes with risk to the
individual. That is why I believe Social Security must continue to
focus on providing a guaranteed benefit, not on beating the market's
performance.
>>>>

Rep. Pomeroy,

Persons who favor privatization do not necessarily advocate 
privatization simply because they want to "beat the market
performance" of the stock market.

The fact is that nearly everyone who reaches retirement age
to collect a benefit, or their survivors, will never be
able to collect benefits equal to what they paid in taxes.
Rep. Pomeroy, I am not that concerned about beating the market,
I am concerned about at least beating my bank's FDIC insured
bank account rate! 

Rep. Pomeroy, is the guaranteed benefit so sacred that it must
saved, even if the guaranteed benefit will cost more that
the amount of taxes contributed for retired workers? Please
note that I am referring here specifically to the retirement
benefits, not the disability or early worker death benefits.
Would you pay more for an insurance policy than you could 
ever hope to receive in benefit? I wouldn't.

How can you continue to support a program which costs more in
taxes than is received in benefits? Why do you support individual
accounts only if they are funded with additional money? What
is different about the 12.4% contributed to Social Security?
Money is money.

Michael