The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Clinton Retirement Plan||Date: 10/11/2007 10:28 AM|
|Author: ziggy29||Number: 59577 of 82343|
>> The problem with this is it would disincentives saving even more. "You, mean if I don't save anything for retirement, the government will cover me, but if I save some, they won't give me anything? I'm buying that big screen HDTV LCD then!" <<
Agreed completely. This is why a phaseout of SS benefits should not be set at *too* low a threshold, and why the phaseout should be gradual as income increases.
For example, we might reduce benefits by 10% for every $5,000 in annual income over $50,000 (adjusted for inflation) such that there would be complete elimination over $100,000. That's enough to reduce the burden and the payouts to the very wealthy, but the phaseout is gradual enough that it doesn't become a strong disincentive to saving.
I'm not dogmatically against means-testing, but I am against doing it so drastically that it discourages private retirement saving.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|