Wednesday, January 05, 2005

The Great Retirement Gamble

from The New York Times
The Bush administration should be honest with the American people and ask us if we want to do away with Social Security, without pretending that privatization will solve the problem of financing the trust fund without pain. I suspect that the American people would reject this effort to transform their "old-age insurance" into another opportunity to roll the dice in the investment casino.


Anonymous said...

Put it all on red 17!!!!

violeta said...

stopping by in your blog
long long time..
not seeing

gecko said...

My question is, if indeed, "Social Security was created as an insurance scheme, not a pension scheme. It was meant to provide a safety net, to protect the unlucky from immiseration in old age.", why does everyone get it at retirement age?

Greg said...

You don't want to participate in personal accounts for Social Security? Then don't. I suspect any change to Social Security will allow you to opt in to the current (unsustainable) system.

J.R. Boyd said...

No, I think that's quite off the mark. First of all it makes no sense--by the administrations own logic--that you can meet a financial "crisis" in a program by having people opt out of it. Yes, that would decrease burden; it would also decrease revenue. So that would accomplish nothing.

What the administration wants is for the public to embrace private accounts in lieu of benefits. That means phasing out the program. Of course, they're not talking about the cuts while they sell the plan. Nonetheless it's widely recognized in the business press that that is what the Bush plan means. If you aren't going to fund the program through taxes then you're going to cut benefits.

Anonymous said...

From gecko's question I assume that either he does not plan to get old, or he has a very good plan to save for eventual retirement.
Frankly, let me in on where your savings are going, cause the earnings on my account is in the toilet.