From: "Robert Comer" 

> Yep. And I'd rather be putting 18.3% of my income into it instead of the
> 14.3% that I am now.

Not me, because I'm quite a  bit older than you for one, and for the other
the risk is to high. (don't put all your eggs in one basket as it were...)

> I think 4% was a figure bandied about, wasn't it? Either way... I'd like
> to stick that extra money in my 401k - or something likely to perform like
> my 401k - than in the gov't sponsored Ponzi scheme.

Even if it screws older folk?

- Bob Comer


"Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.05.06.18.46.178146{at}shultzinfosystems.com...
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:36:16 -0500, Robert Comer wrote:
>
>>> And the youngsters can go screw when it's their turn and the system is
>>> bankrupt?
>>
>> No, it can be fixed in other ways, and there's already 401K's for
>> retirement accounts -- that's one reason I don't like this, it's
>> redundant
>> *and* it messes up another income stream already promised.
>>
>> Youngsters, if they're halfway smart, will go big time 401K and actually
>> have quite a decent savings nestegg at retirement.
>>
> Yep. And I'd rather be putting 18.3% of my income into it instead of the
> 14.3% that I am now.
>
> I think 4% was a figure bandied about, wasn't it? Either way... I'd like
> to stick that extra money in my 401k - or something likely to perform like
> my 401k - than in the gov't sponsored Ponzi scheme.
>
>

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