I've got three problems with Bush's social security plan:
- I don't really want another account to manage. I have this savings account, that IRA, this 401(k), that mutual fund, and a bunch of other stuff to keep track of. And that's not even counting my fantasy baseball team stats. Why in God's name would I want to manage yet another account? Yes, yes, I see the benefit of an ownership society. If you really want to do that, just drop Social Security altogether. Just grandfather it out (so to speak) and let everyone decide how many accounts he or she needs (and for what).
- Has anybody asked the question I find most troubling? What is the effect on the market of putting 4% of our collective net income every year into the stock market. Won't that be a trillion bucks a year into a finite equity market? My take is the inflation will overrun any real gains. Thinking ahead, that makes this a real ponzi scheme. When people start drawing out of this market, it will depress so fast, the net gain we're being told about could very well be a loss. I'm not a zero sum kind of guy, but I don't see the numbers working out.
- This business of overcoming the near term shortfall by raising the social security tax (on middle income people) without increasing their benefits is horsesh*t. I can't believe a Republican came up with it. Get me Hastert on the phone....
Here's a plan: It's clearly better to define the benefits downward. Nobody thinks SS will be their entire retirement security any more. Start phasing it out, and instead, offer insurance policies to those who think they might outlive the average guy.
5 comments:
Given that it's not broken and doesn't need fixing, the only reason to do ANYTHING at all about Social Security is to destroy it on principle.
Social Security would have to be destroyed on principle, because there are no other grounds: the program works exactly the way it was intended.
What is the principle at stake? Hard to say, since the famously fatuous Bush is the spokespuppet, but we can imagine that it has to do broadly with social Darwinism, with letting those who don't have trust funds and who never went to Yale die off quicker so that the fittest may better enjoy their survival.
Decreasing the surplus population is a dirty business, but someone's got to do it.
Oh, so now it's NOT broke. Are ya calling Bill Clinton a liar?
Like most entitlement programs, it does exactly what it was intended to do (which is to give the people the illusion of security), and that IS the problem.
Having people move into retirement with that illusion is much more cruel than helping them prepare for it.
No, Social Security is NOT broken, but it IS necessary.
Particularly for women. Giving birth to another human being is by far the single biggest predictor of poverty in old age.
Once the "principle" has been served, old women in the United States of America will once again be dining on catfood casserole.
It was never "not broken". It was a transfer of wealth from day one, creating a sense of dependency and entitlement by people regardless of their willingness to contribute. It guarantees that people will not be responsible for themselves. It's a cruel thing to do to the human spirit.
And since the government subsidizes kids having kids (as long as the father gets out of the picture), the government is the biggest producer and sustainer of poverty imagineable.
Mmmmmmm, cat food!
Post a Comment