SocSec: Insurance or Savings Plan 4453

Robert Thomas

Whatsamatter, Bob, truth hurt?

( grin )

Indeed. Only the OBJECTIVES that the process is designed to deliver. I thought that was made clear above.

Second, the

Indeed.

You don't know that this will

And similarly, I do not know if it will. But I DO know that the current DEFINED Benefit, GUARANTEES that a floor will exist. Under the President's Plan of private accounts, we do NOT have that same guarantee. consequently we may only say that a floor MAY exist. Since the objectives were designed to produce an income floor, as we agree, then clearly, a process which does NOT guarantee that floor is less desirable, in terms of achieving those objectives than one which does. Hence, I the uncertainty in the existence of a floor will lead rational individuals to reject that proposal as less likely to achieve the objective.

In point of fact, you have no idea whatever what will

We were discussion the President's plan, as he is currently selling it to the hand-picked audiences his handlers allow to be in his presence, and who will not ask him any hard questions that he can't answer. We do not need to know the final form, since Congress' role is NOT under consideration. These remarks were in response to Olly's which clearly indicated the President's Plan. So while your above comment is indeed quite true, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

For one who has just butterted that we don't know the final plan, you appear to make quite a few buttertions concerning it. somewhat contradictory, wouldn't you say?

In any event, from what I read, the recipient would have to annuitize it, and therefore would NOT be subject to inheritance, and therefore, not a factor. Regardless, what you say applies only to those income groups that would benefit by not having to contribute to Social Security and instead having the money to invest on their own. Obviously, they would benefit even without the inheritance factor. As far as the other income groups, for whom the benefit outweighs the investment returns, I would indeed say that this is a bad thing.

Denial is not becoming to you. The president's plan indeed changes the objectives of the plan from guaranteeing a floor income, which we will also call the 'safety net,' to one in which that floor is reduced by approximately one half as compared to the current promised benefit, with the opportunity for the individual to gamble that he-she can achieve sufficient returns in order to fund an annuity that would replace the missing guarantee.

As far as it being a 'scheme' is concerned, the definition of a scheme is a systemic plan to bring about a change. this is quite a proper characterization, as the president is seeking a systematic means to convert Social Security from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan.

So, far from being 'arrant nonsense,' the use of the term 'scheme,' characterizes quite properly, what the President is intending to do. I suggest that you consult your dictionary before you attach improper and incorrect emotional baggage to words which their definitions do not suggest.

And if my grandmother had wheels she COULD be a trolley. There is a big difference between MIGHT and GUARANTEED.

I couldn't think of a more appropriate way to characterize the President's 'scheme.' You have beat me to it.

Note the typical reactionary response when they note that they are on the losing end of a discussion.

( grin )

Have you forgotten my position?

The President has butterted that he want private accounts. He has referred to the Commission that was created and he relies on one of the models. The model generally under consideration stipulates 4% of FICA contributions to be diverted to a private account up to a maximum of $1000. These numbers form the basis for current discussion.

Incorrect; he has relied on the specifics that his commission suggested. He has done nothing to indicate that he has modified their conclusions in any other way. No one in their right mind will vote on a principle without specifics, but there is no way to evaluate the principle without specifics. Thus, what you are saying is that Bush wants the population to vote on something in ignorance.

And why not? That strategy worked once before. But apparently it's not going to fly this time, despite your weak protestations. So, if we accept your protestations, then Bush appears indeed as a snake-oil salesman, as some have characterized him, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid populace. If we reject that buttertion and instead rely on the current report of the Commission, we see the 'plan' fails on its merits.

Either way, both you and Bush lose this one.

Oh please. The math tells us. You know damn well that the defined benefit guarantee will be reduced by around one half.

Not at all. The only principle I have butterted is the retention of the defined benefit. Quite frankly, I don't care how that is achieved. With you, the Nature is more important than the goal. Very different, and apparently, you don't see that.

I would be most appreciative if you would outline as to how you would construct such a plan that guarantees that.

And, again, I see a great deal of value in the concept of

I do not disagree. However, you must recognize that from your perspective those are the primary goals of the system. I state that the primary goal of the system is to guarantee a benefit. I have made that difference in priorities between us to you previously.

alan