Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
If this goes through, I will be a happy camper!

Go to:

http://www.cnnfn.com/2000/03/14/social_security/q_retire_savingslaw/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wish you the best of luck in getting that IRA limit raised. You can predict the objections "This will benefit only the rich." That's nonsense, of course, but it's predictable nonsense and might prevail. Although the change is too late to benefit me personally, I'd like to see you a happy camper. The additional accumulation of capital in the American economy would benefit everyone.

Here's another predictable objection: IRA savings simply displaces other savings and does not increase the total savings in the economy. This will come from sources who really object to capital formation in general but won't admit it. All I can say is, "Make 'em prove it!"

Here's one point to ponder:

"What we should be trying to do is to encourage people to establish private retirement accounts and help them take pressure off the Social Security system," said Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., one lawmaker who has proposed a bill increasing the limit.

That's an excerpt from the article you cited. How does the establishment of private retirement accounts take pressure of Social Security? There's a benign interpretation: If more people have substantial retirement income from IRA's, there will be less clamor to increase benefits. Malignant interpretation: If someone has substantial retirement income from IRA's, Congress will deny that person the promised Social Security benefits on the grounds that the benefits aren't needed. This isn't a prediction; it's only a warning "Beware the sucker punch!" Prudent people who provide for their own retirement may be punished for this by losing their promised benefits. Actually, the Social Security administration has taken to hedging the promise with the expression "There for you when you need it." Does this sound like a warning that, if you don't need it, you won't get it?

Chips, who at age 60 guesses it would be really hard for the government to wiggle out of the SS benefits promised to him, but that's only a guess
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Even now, SSI is *insurance*, and our policies could be cancelled at any time. I wouldn't rely on it.

I think there are too many lobbying organizations around to stop any messing with SSI in the near future. But I'm using $0 as my projected social security benefit for down the road.

I look at SS as just another tax instituted by the government, as governments often have done through the ages, they promise that great things will be accomplished as a result of the tax, but usually deliver less than promised. Much less annoying than them taking my rights away.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't argue with your cautious assumption that SS will not be there for you. The risk you run of being defrauded of your benefits by your kindly government decline with age, I believe. I am planning on receiving it and, if the government reneges on its quasi-promise, I'll spend a little less. It's not a big deal for me. My counterbalancing cautious assumption is that I'll make only 4% real return as an annual average over the next 35 years while invested mostly in the S&P 500 or the Schwab 1000.

Chips, planning to start SS payments in five years, at age 65, and collect for thirty years at least
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Email your congresspersons and you may have a better chance!!!!! Let them know you have a need that can only be resolved in this way. Don't rely on someone else to tell them!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PS: You can go to http://www.earthlaw.org/ if you don't know your congressperson's email, webmail, webpage, or mailing address!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
PPS: There is also a telephone number for the congressional switchboard at the site, tips on what trying to sound logical and intelligent regarding your political position (that's what it really is, not just a tax or retirement position)!!!! How does this benefit this great country of ours? Etcetera, etcetera. How does this benefit the congressperson? How many people will benefit by this bill? The more complete you can make the map, the easier it is for the congressperson to follow.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
IMO the only way this legistration to increase IRA contributions becomes law is if a Republican is in the White House. Clinton and Gore would veto any bill on their desk with this provision because they want to save SS & Medicare.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Chips wrote:

<<That's an excerpt from the article you cited. How does the establishment of private retirement accounts take pressure of Social
Security? There's a benign interpretation: If more people have substantial retirement income from IRA's, there will be less
clamor to increase benefits. Malignant interpretation: If someone has substantial retirement income from IRA's, Congress will
deny that person the promised Social Security benefits on the grounds that the benefits aren't needed. This isn't a prediction; it's
only a warning "Beware the sucker punch!" Prudent people who provide for their own retirement may be punished for this by
losing their promised benefits. Actually, the Social Security administration has taken to hedging the promise with the expression
"There for you when you need it." Does this sound like a warning that, if you don't need it, you won't get it?>>

My response:

I've thought about this aspect of SS for years. When the "SS trust fund" starts running out of money in the next 20 years or so, Congress and the President will have some tough decisions to make. One of the first options may be to cut off benefits for those who don't need them. (Come on, does Lee Iacoca REALLY need his SS check?!) But then again, since the majority of campaign money comes from the wealthy, maybe they won't cut benefits. We'll see. Tax increases are also a likely possibility. There are some tough compromises between keeping the system solvent and tax increases/benefits cuts. That's why I think that our government should give back the SS surplus we have now and let people invest it themselves. That's the way it should have been done all along. Of course, we will need provisions to make sure that some dodo doesn't lose his entire SS acount day-trading.....

MrDP
Print the post Back To Top