No. of Recommendations: 0
Federal govt
retired financial giants with no other nterests
several separate entities managing "regions"
current employers using existing 401k framework
individual investors should manage their own retirement plan

Click here to see results so far.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Where are you going to find "retired financial giants with no other interests"? <grin>

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
good point!

rdf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
One of the things to consider when casting your vote is to remember; Not all people are internet users; not all people are able to manage their own finances; not everybody can read(yes this is true); many people can be independent, but, think about the millions who for one reason or another are not independent.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
disclosure: i voted for individuals managing their own accounts.

One of the things to consider when casting your vote is to remember; Not all people are internet users;

true, but one can still manage one's own account via phone or mail. heck, most of my retirement money is in a 401(k) that, until a few months ago, was not accessible over the web.

not all people are able to manage their own finances;

<libertarian soap box>that's their own problem, not mine. we have public libraries with volumes about personal finance. there are tons of websites (like TMF) to help people learn how to manage money. there are non-profit organizations that can help. i should not have my choices restricted or controlled simply because the guy across the street doesn't know how to plan for retirement.</libertarian soap box>

not everybody can read(yes this is true); many people can be independent, but, think about the millions who for one reason or another are not independent.

better, i think, to teach them to read and to be independent than set up a system that "makes the right decisions for them", so to speak.

zay34kc3
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We still have the problem that Social Security is an important source of income to the least advantaged segments of the population. TMF users may be able to manage their finances, but I am afraid that many others would fall victim to those fast talkers who sell them check cashing services, furniture rentals, and numerous other questionable scams. SS could become yet another one.

Meanwhile, linking SS payments to investment performance sounds good in good times, but in bad times the income is still needed--maybe even more so, so won't govt be forced to bail out losing investments--no matter what the cost. Is this a good deal for the future of any of us?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agreee with your points. The leaders of this country are going to care about the folks who have problems and fix them for the lowest denominator. That is not! the way I want it and I can bet you don't want that either. So, we better come up with a method that will "take care" of the folks that can't or won't do for them selves and still leave "us" an option that we can live with and manage better than Uncle Sam ever could. It will take a lot of thought and input to our Federal Government to get this done. The work had better start soon. Think about it!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You are correct about having to "take care of some folks"
There should be an alternate plan available for people with more knowledge. Our society is not set up to take care of all people from birth to death. Social Security is "not" supposed to be your only income in your retirement. It is if you choose it to be, but, you then live within your means.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Meanwhile, linking SS payments to investment performance sounds good in good times, but in bad times the income is still needed--maybe even more so, so won't govt be forced to bail out losing investments--no matter what the cost. Is this a good deal for the future of any of us?

Hey didnt Puru do something like this. They switched thier SS system to be participant guided. This has cut the cost of administering the system not to mention boosted the retirement funds of those who participate and the citizens are much happier with this new system.

I for one would opt to go the investment route. You could always give the people a choice, self directed or government directed.

HMMM wonder how many would stay with the government directed way??

rec
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Where are you going to find "retired financial giants with no other interests"? <grin>

Everyone owes and is owed favors. If you put someone in a position of power, their favors all come due.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<libertarian soap box>that's their own problem, not mine. we have public libraries with volumes about personal
finance. there are tons of websites (like TMF) to help people learn how to manage money. there are non-profit
organizations that can help. i should not have my choices restricted or controlled simply because the guy across
the street doesn't know how to plan for retirement.</libertarian soap box>


Unfortunately, we are not a bunch of individuals; we are a society, so we have to consider the impact of our choices on the whole society, not just on us.

Set aside the 'right to property' belief for a second.
Suppose the government decides to allow breaking and entering if the burglar doesn't use any weapons. Now there is a huge advantage to strong people with a criminal bent who wear body armor--they can invade homes with no consequence at all. Would you say "Too bad for the weak! There are gyms they can go to and supplements they can take to get stronger, there are nonprofit organizations that can help. Obviously they don't want to be strong. If they get robbed with no recourse, that's their problem not mine; I know judo, if anyone tries to break in, I'll break their neck. Don't restrict my right to break into someone else's house just because he doesn't know how to defend himself." This is obviously an absurd example, but when we pass laws to benefit people who are able to take advantage of something, we need to consider what the impact is on people who are not able to take advantage of it, or who will be harmed trying to take advantage of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Set aside the 'right to property' belief for a second.
Suppose the government decides to allow breaking and entering if the burglar doesn't use any weapons. Now there is a huge advantage to strong people with a criminal bent who wear body armor--they can invade homes with no consequence at all. Would you say "Too bad for the weak! There are gyms they can go to and supplements they can take to get stronger, there are nonprofit organizations that can help. Obviously they don't want to be strong. If they get robbed with no recourse, that's their problem not mine; I know judo, if anyone tries to break in, I'll break their neck. Don't restrict my right to break into someone else's house just because he doesn't know how to defend himself." This is obviously an absurd example, but when we pass laws to benefit people who are able to take advantage of something, we need to consider what the impact is on people who are not able to take advantage of it, or who will be harmed trying to take advantage of it.


your argument is not only "absurd", it's self-defeating, because it is the interest of government to protect people from such invasions. why not suspend all aspects of government and make all types of arguments?

i'm not advocating that we immediately dump SS and replace it. obviously, this would be too much of a shock to everyone involved. what i am advocating is a system whereby i am responsible (and empowered) to take care of my own retirement. how we get there (as long as it's fair, equitable, and cost effective) is the secondary goal for me.

finally, let's turn your argument on its head. SS laws were passed to enable retirees/elderly to take advantage of an income insurance fund. the whole SS debate arises from the fact that people are noticing the impact on the rest of us who will not be able to "take advantage" of it or will be harmed trying. if i suspend the right-to-property belief for a minute, i am simply applying the logic in your last sentence.

zay34kc3
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<<. . . . SS laws were passed to enable retirees/elderly to take advantage of an income insurance fund.>>>>

Buzz - I respectfully disagree. Social security was a welfare program from its inception, notwithstanding the way it "sold" politically; and, IIRC, SS was passed during the 30's in large part to encourage older job holders to retire so that young adults would be able to get jobs during the Depression.

Just my $0.02.

Regards, JAFO
PS - I am still waiting for the original poster in the related thread to answer my questions about his (her) proposal. It is diffiult to evaluate any proposal when majour questions have not been answered.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
On the Whole I think the program would have to be run by the Feds to insure participation.

I would like to see perhaps 25% of the money put away by people over 30 to go to an individual account that they could choose options like a 401k account.
for those under 30 perhaps as much as 50 %.

(we still have to keep paying for those to old to amass much in their account and for those still retired)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We should really move this argument over to the Social Security reform board. My response is there.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement