From: Bill Lucy 

In article , bobcomer{at}mindspring.com says...
> As for the Galveston one, not enough info, and I bet that's a very best case
> scenario (started with this plan at 18 years old, worked until 69,
> contributed the max the whole time, or something like that), rather than an
> average case.

The Galveston Plan requires a contribution which is higher than the Social
Security tax, so the "max contribution" point is moot. A
recipient *could*, unlike Social Security, outlive his/her benefit. There
are no guaranteed survivor benefits either. There is also no portability.
Lower wage earners under the plan, especially married workers with a
non-working spouse, are almost guaranteed to receive less money than a
similar scenario under Social Security.

There are other, significant problems with the plan, IMO. A 1999 article in
a bulletin I subscribe to goes into great detail on the good and bad parts.
It's a good 12 pages of detail.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5