From: "Robert Comer" 

>   They haven't specified yet what will happen to the benefits of the 40-55
> group (so that's why I don't have an opinion on his whole plan yet).

They haven't said anything about the cuts at all, other than basing it on
inflation rather than something else -- basing it that way make it get
further and further behind compared to cost of living, and the 40% was
mentioned assuming one worked 40 years and that the change in basis would
lose everyone 1% or more every year.  It is very conceivable that I would
work 35 more years, so that's 35% less than I would have made under the old
plan...

>Even
> an extremist like Barbara Boxer says that you'll see 20-30% cut in
> benefits
> if we don't do anything.

I happen to think that's bunk, it can be fixed without *any* cuts, it's
just convenient to say that it must be cut under the current plan because
that's the easy thing to do, rather than address the problem rationally.

The facts are that right now SocSec takes in more money than it distributes
and has for the 70 or years since it's inception -- it is **forecast** to
start paying out more than it takes in 13 years -- so where's the savings
that should be covering that eventuality.  Answer: the government used it
for it's own use -- so it's up to them to pay that back, and that's how it
should be fixed. And after the 50-100 years that would cover, then think
about raising the taxes, not cutting the rates.  Any cut in rates is just
going to screw a segment of the population.

> So you might as well have something extra above
> your 401K to backfill against the reduced benefits in the future.

At a higher risk, but why would we need anything over and above the 401K?
the mechanism is already there and doing something redundant like this is
just going to cost more money, not save it -- not to mention it'll takes
funds out of the SocSec fund that'll make it not able to pay benefits
*much* quicker.

- Bob Comer




"Mike N."  wrote in message
news:oi8501p9utb7d0hg46k4fnfmb8gras5pge{at}4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:33:08 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
>>That's just what reported, I have no quote from Bush, they are saying 40%
>>or
>>more is going to be cut, no mention of age, though that would be a logical
>
>   They haven't specified yet what will happen to the benefits of the 40-55
> group (so that's why I don't have an opinion on his whole plan yet).
> Even
> an extremist like Barbara Boxer says that you'll see 20-30% cut in
> benefits
> if we don't do anything.   So you might as well have something extra above
> your 401K to backfill against the reduced benefits in the future.
>

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