Fred Thompson’s Social Security Plan

6:29 pm EST November 9th, 2007 | News | 8 Comments

Privatize social security. You lose. You get nothing. Fred Thompson, do not pass go.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

8 Responses to “Fred Thompson’s Social Security Plan”

  1. z adura says:
    November 9, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    I just don’t get these people. There are 401(k) plans and there is Social Security. Wealthy and upper middle class folks maximize their 401(k) plans (and their mortgage tax credit, Sec. 125 plans, Health Savings Accounts and business deductions.) They would love Fred’s plan because they will get another tax advantaged vehicle.

    Poor and lower middle class folks don’t have surplus. Social security is their retirement plan. It might be fashionable for a millionaire actor and lobbyist to imagine that these people should save more, but he should try to plan a life on $7 / hour before he makes those kinds of absurd assertions.

  2. DarthVega7 says:
    November 9, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    Screw the government… privitizing Social Security will ultimately reduce costs in the end.

  3. Bill L. says:
    November 9, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    “Screw the government… privitizing Social Security will ultimately reduce costs in the end.”

    Ummm, no.

    It’s already been established that fees for private funds run anywhere from 3 to 5 times the amount currently incurred for SS.

    Nice try, though.

  4. SaveFarris says:
    November 9, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    You’re assuming private accounts would bring the same lousy rate of return as the current system. And that, my friend, is a faulty assumption.

    Letting the poor & middle class invest their own money allows them to .. you know … become less poor. You’re against that?

  5. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    November 10, 2007 at 12:10 am

    “Letting the poor & middle class invest their own money allows them to .. you know … become less poor.”

    You are assuming the poor and middle class are savvy investors.

    “You’re against that?”

    Please tell me you don’t think what you just said was a sound argument. Please tell me you aren’t that stupid.

  6. z adura says:
    November 10, 2007 at 2:22 am

    SaveFarris, you show a general lack of understanding of the issues.

    (1) The Social Security system is a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that current retirees’ benefits are paid by current employees. If current employees instead redirect their taxes into accounts for their own benefit, current retirees benefits would have to be paid from either borrowing or additional taxes.

    (2) There is a nearly $2.0 trillion surplus of bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund which could be exchanged for securities and financial instruments. Or, given that these bonds are basically held in a notional government account, the government could accrue a higher rate of interest than the 5.5% they earn today.

    In other words Farris, you don’t know about what you are talking.

  7. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    November 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    “In other words Farris, you don’t know about what you are talking.”

    Everyone on this site should have this as a macro.

  8. August J. Pollak says:
    November 10, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    You’re assuming private accounts would bring the same lousy rate of return as the current system.

    That would be the “system” that even Republicans are admitting would be perfectly solid and stable for at least another 30 years.