Private accounts: The dumbest thing ever

[The Duke]

You could invest them in bonds at 4% (which is almost twice the rate of return on the current system by the way) or in stocks (Which average much higher than that).

Social Security is already going bankrupt, so I don't what people are crying about with solvency.  At least this way we can build a successor system.

[The Duke]

Raising the cap only extends the inevitable.

Raising the cap will hurt businesses that have to match your contribution, and will therefore discourage job creation.  When you tax something, you get less of it.  When you tax employment, you get less employment.

The cap hike that's been talked about, raising it from 89K to 100K actually brings in very little money.

The rate of return of the stock market is high enough that a 4% tax can produce more money under a fully private system than the current sytem does with a 12.4% tax.  You will retire with higher benefits and you will pay lower taxes to get them.

The private system is simply superior, and should win out on those grounds alone, even if there was no financial problem in the existing system.

[The Duke]

David S,

That was a good point about the Congressmen.  I remember Kerry talking about health care on the stump, saying that all Americans should be given the health plan that congressmen and Senators get.  He said what's good for our Congressmen and Senators is good for everyone.  Well, the House and Senate have a 401K type system for their retirement.  Isn't what's good for Congressmen and Senators good for all of us?

[The Duke]

David S,

That was a good point about the Congressmen.  I remember Kerry talking about health care on the stump, saying that all Americans should be given the health plan that congressmen and Senators get.  He said what's good for our Congressmen and Senators is good for everyone.  Well, the House and Senate have a 401K type system for their retirement.  Isn't what's good for Congressmen and Senators good for all of us?

Subtle difference here is that you could opt OUT of the health care plan.  If you didn't like it you don't have to do it.

If you opt out of SS Privatization you still have to pay for it for others through reduced benefits yourself.

No benefit reduction has been proposed, in fact no final plan has been proposed so any claim to know the specifics of a potential plan is false.

[The Duke]

I'm well aware where the rumor came from.  But since no actual proposal has been put forward, its impossible to say with certainty, as you did, that there will be benefit cuts.  Its also not totally honest to call something a cut when its only a cut in the reate of growth.  Finally, since Congress has been given the lead in drafting the bill, I don't see how a White House Commission is all that relevant.

[The Duke]

I'm well aware where the rumor came from.  But since no actual proposal has been put forward, its impossible to say with certainty, as you did, that there will be benefit cuts.  Its also not totally honest to call something a cut when its only a cut in the reate of growth.  Finally, since Congress has been given the lead in drafting the bill, I don't see how a White House Commission is all that relevant.

By this logic we can't really even discuss private SS accounts since there aren't any details available right now.  But based on the best information currently available we can guesstimate what such a proposal would be like.

And it is honest to call a rate of growth reduction a cut because it is a cut in buying power (which is much more important than just the straight # of $'s).

We can discuss the principle of investing the Social Security tax in the market, the financial solvency of the system as it stands, and countless other parts of the issue.  What shouldn't be done is to imply that benefits will be cut when no such thing has been proposed because it is outright misleading to do so.

And no, cutting the rate of growth to an inflation index instead of a wage index is not a cut in buying power, by definition indexing something to inflation keeps buying power unchanged.

So now we have two lies from Wakie, one is that there will be benefit cuts, the other is that purchaisng power of benefits will decrease.  Care to try for 3?

[The Duke]

If properyl structured, no they don't have the risk of losing all their money.  You may not know much about the stock market, but you must know that index or mutual funds do not fall to zero.

If my benefits are indexed to inflation, then I never have a cut in benefits.  You can't "cut" benefits when the benefits that are supposedly being cut were never recieved.  I quote Howard Dean, whose response when accused of supporting "cuts" in Medicare in the mid-90s said in an interview with Geroge Stephanapolous:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) Congressman Gephardt, I heard what you had to say just out there, sad attack, old politics. But I want to get you to respond to the substance of what he said about your support of Medicare in the past.

HOWARD DEAN: Of course, I support Medicare. That's ridiculous. I certainly have been very angry at Medicare over their bureaucratic stuff. You know, they're really difficult bureaucratically to deal with.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) But he goes farther. He also says that in 1995 you specifically supported the $270 billion or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich.

HOWARD DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) Here's the, here's the documents.

HOWARD DEAN: I know what Gingrich has said, but this ...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) This is what Congressman Gephardt is saying about 1995, and those are the clips supporting it. It's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven to ten percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which ...

HOWARD DEAN: Oh, the cut -cutting the rate of growth. That's much different.

Your next Party Chairman seems to agree with me, that cutting the rate of growth is NOT a cut.

And you claim that inflation is "easily manipulated".  This is the kind of goofy Democrap conspiracy theory stuff sane people hate.  Am I supposed to believe that the Bush administration is going to alter the inflation rate artificially to screw the elderly?  That is so insane, and so unsubstaiated the he has any such intention, that you essentially lose the debate right there.  You've made several remarks that you can't substantiate except with rampant speculation, never producing any evidence aside from saying that some, though not even all of them, just a few of these are options, only options, presented in a commission report, not legislation just a commission report.

You have become a somewhat paranoid luantic.  The govenrment will lie about the inflation rate to screw the elderly?  Can you even come close to substantiating that?