From: "Randy H" 

There was a recent article that said the Chilean system isn't all that it
was cracked up to be, but I don't have the link handy.

"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:42029479$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Here's an initial link on the Chilean SS System:
>
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-17-97.html
>
> --
> Glenn M.
>
>
> "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
> news:42029028{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Talk to the people in Chile, where they 100% privatized the system, and
> it's
>> now solvent for centuries, it's reported.
>>
>> I think it all depends on HOW the private accounts are structured.  Even
> if
>> you just put 4% of your own money into an account that draws 3% basic CD
>> rate, at least you'll HAVE it at retirement time, no matter WHAT the
>> government does with the Social Security side of things, or how many are
>> $$$'s congress "borrows" from the trust fund.
>>
>> Plus, when/if you die, how much of what you've put in goes to your
>> estate?
>> (zero is the correct answer).  With the personal accounts, you can pass
> that
>> on.
>>
>> Let's see what the whole detail of the plan is, before we throw out the
>> whole concept.  I think there will still be restrictions on what you can
> do
>> with the money, where it has to go, when you can get access to it, etc,
>> so
>> it really becomes a personal nest egg, but allows you, the individual to
>> direct it.
>>
>> Heck, remember this one important point:
>>
>> IT'S ALL YOUR MONEY ANYWAY!!!  It comes out of YOUR paycheck, and from
> your
>> employer's pocket if you're employed, or ALL from your pocket if you're
> self
>> employed.  Everybody seems to think that this is some great government
> gift
>> program, it's really just a forced savings account that the big boys in
>> DC
>> have grown accustomed to being able to dip into and put I.O.U.'s in.
>>
>> IT'S MY MONEY, DAMN IT, let ME control where it goes.  If you're going to
>> FORCE me to set aside 13 some odd percent, then at least let me watch
> what's
>> done with it until I'm allowed to get it.
>>
>> Congress is exempt, and can direct their own, let the people do the same
>> thing. I'll bet we're a bunch smarter then they are about it.
>>
>> .
>>
>> --
>> Glenn M.
>>
>>
>> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>> news:42028697{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > >   I'm trying to figure out why people are so upset at
any mention of
>> > > changing SocSec. Do you think SocSec shouldn't be
touched at all, or
> is
>> it
>> > > just Bush's ideas that you don't like.
>> >
>> > I'm not upset at changing it per se, but I'm upset about the potential
>> > benefits cut when I'm already too old to recoup a cut that big, even if
> I
>> > put the max in for a private socsec account. And that new private
> account
>> > has *MUCH* more risk of not ever paying off.  Ask any recent British
>> retiree
>> > just what they think about their private socsec accounts.....
>> >
>> > He mentions 2 groups that may need help, low income -- I don't fit
>> > that,
>> > older than 55, no, single male that already pays more taxes than most
> and
>> > now they want me to accept a 40% benefits cut even though I've paid
>> > into
>> > SocSec for 30 years...  No way, no how.
>> >
>> > - Bob Comer
>> >
>> >
>> > "Mike N."  wrote in message
>> > news:u5v401hqibi6aj8n3g0ukugqen7tsg4fdi{at}4ax.com...
>> > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:03:23 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>> > >  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>I didn't watch it live.  I SEVERELY don't like Bush's SocSec
> proposals,
>> > >>and
>> > >
>> > >   I'm trying to figure out why people are so upset at
any mention of
>> > > changing SocSec.  Do you think SocSec shouldn't be
touched at all, or
> is
>> > > it
>> > > just Bush's ideas that you don't like.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

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