From: "Glenn Meadows" 

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