On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:24:06AM -0600, Gary Denton wrote: > Semantics - currently projected using current calculations of > benefits.
Which apparently you have a great deal of trouble understanding. Pathetic. > How is this a straw man? Your proposal promises people their future > benefits will increase at a rate to buy a quantity of goods that is > decades obsolete. No, it is not obsolete at all. That is the point of cost-of-living increases -- you index to the consumer price index to keep current. Indexing to wages gives an INCREASE in standard of living beyond what we have today. > If you think that people on Soc. Sec. are living like Kings.... Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I do not think that. On the other hand, if you increase at 2% per year above inflation, the standard of living will be FOUR TIMES higher in 2075. That is far too much for the government to be promising to pay to future generations for what should be a security net. > Or you can stick the government into the stock market investment > business in collaboration with Merrill Lynch and let Enron economics > provide for your future. That would not be smart. Of course, it is another of your straw men. No one has proposed that. Any system they propose is likely to be a very low cost system passively-indexed to a very broad market of stocks and bonds. > Look at what has happened in Sweden, UK, and other countries that have > switched to old age investment plans. Returns have plummeted, the > governments are having to step in reinstating the Security portion > to reinstate minimum benefits and transaction costs are much higher, > about 20% in the UK, compared to less than 1% with our current system. You are confused about those plans. You may want to study them more carefully rather than parroting the sound bites of a few other misinformed people. > Then you have the government deciding what the current COLA is like > in Medicare. In Medicare they now have the COLA adjusted down below > inflation when for Senior Citizens with higher health costs it is > higher. Cost of living adjustments are indexed to inflation, for some relevant measure of inflation, like the CPI-W. You appear to be proposing a CPI-MC (medical care) for Medicare. Do you have a serious plan? > You don't have to estimate their value, they just have to be paid back > by the full faith and credit of the federal government like any other > bonds. Of course we have to estimate their value. Otherwise how can you make the claim that SS is fully solvent? Apparently in your world, wishing makes it so. > Why do you trust him with your money not to mention mine? I don't. Which is an excellent reason for partial privatization. President and Congress will have a MUCH harder time legislating away money in private accounts than money in the SS trust fund. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
