Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
>> [...]
The experts at the Social Security Administration *are* doing it, and
they're doing an incredibly efficient job at it too. Social Security has
less than 1% administrative overhead. No private retirement options come
even close.
Uh, according to http://www.fool.com/school/basics/basics04.htm:
"Administrative costs are the costs of recordkeeping, mailings,
maintaining a customer service line, etc. These are all necessary costs,
though they vary in size from fund to fund. The thriftiest funds can
keep these costs below 0.2% of fund assets, while the ones who use
engraved paper, colorful graphics, and phone answerers with
high-falutin' accents might fail to bring administrative costs below
0.4% of fund assets."
So the SSA is up to 5 times more wasteful than the "thrifty" private
funds, and more than twice as wasteful as the worst of them.
[...]
I stand corrected.
There are funds out there that specialize in low risk investment. Some
people are very risk tolerant and others are not. That is a personal
decision, not one that should be made by the government.
Both the government and the people have decided that retirement security
is a national concern.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
