RE: GEN X doesn't want Social Security anyway

[Javier Jimenez <jimenj@yahoo.com>]

>>>>>>>> Charlie wrote:
   The Social Security "reform" movement in this country is misguided.
If social security is left alone, it will be fine until the year 2034.
After that, it will be able to operate at 70 percent capacity.  The Wall
Street executives and the politicians they own want "reform" in the form 
of so-called individual investment accounts.  This would mean that they get
millions in administrative fees.  It would also mean that the funds are
risked in insecure stocks.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Certainly the Prudentials and Fidelitys have a vested interest in
any privatization effort, but anybody would agree that investing
money in stocks and bonds yields better results than the government
run pay-as-you go system.  I really wouldn't mind the financial
services companies from making money, if in the end I will be better
off.  If you think that these companies making a profit is a conflict
of interest then people, in your view, should not invest in mutual
funds, etc.  So why do they do it?  Because it is the way to
accumulate wealth and security for the future.

This argument is like the one on taxes; we shouldn't have a tax
cut because the rich are going to pay less.  Well, if I am going
to save 1 or 2% and they are going to save 1 or 2%, it works for
me.  Their 1 or 2% will be a larger amount of $$$, obviously,
because they pay more $$$.  In short, this is just another class
warfare tactic that moves no one forward.  Privatization is the
best alternative because 1) payroll taxes are too high yielding
very low returns; 2) the government still owes the money it took
from SS to cover general spending; meaning that not only higher
payroll taxes will be needed to support future retirees, but higher
income taxes will be needed, as well, to pay back the debt owed to
SS; 3) Young workers will get negative returns if any money at all;
4) the poor work harder and longer throughout their lives and live
shorter retirement lives; meaning that the taxes paid will end up
supporting other retirees that live longer lives.  On the average,
those retirees are the high and middle class that performed less
hard labor; 5) since workers own their retirement money and have
a right to it, unlike SS, their heirs inherit unused assets, assets
being a keyword because under SS there are no assets, there is no
capital, only a promise made by a handful of politicians to be kept
by another handful of politicians a generation later;

>>>>>>>>>>>>Charlie wrote:
The solution is obvious, raise the earned-income tax cap.
Bill Gates presently pays 72000 dollars into the Social Security
System anually, yet he is the richest man in the world.  Make these
people pay their fair share and the system will last for years into
the future.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think you mean that he pays SS taxes on the first 72000 of earned
income, which is the SS cap.  I dont think he would be donating $68K
a year to Uncle Sam.  However, the issue goes beyond making
SS "last for years in the future"; the true issue is to make it a
fair deal for all workers, and that it provides the security and
freedom that all workers deserve during their retirement years.  SS
today provides enough income to keep people out of poverty, a solution
exists that will provide people with better retirement income away from
government dependence and the ill effects of that.  Around the world
today, we have examples of private systems that are providing the
security workers want and need for their retirements; one such example
is Chile, with their privatized system Chileans are enjoy great economic
times, low unemployment, high sustainable growth and greater freedom
and security for all workers.  So why not in the US.  With the largest
financial infrastructure in the world we should be able to do better
than Social Security.