Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.



The proposal to create individual equity or bond accounts in Social Security subjects future retirement income to changes in the market. Earlier, I was a securities salesperson and have an understanding of the stock and bond markets as well as retirement planning. To adequately plan for one’s retirement requires a combination of investments including things that are relatively certain, Social Security and pension plans, as well as investments that may fluctuate with the market. I planned to retire in 2003 however when my wife got cancer it changed my retirement to 1998. For us my earlier retirement had a positive impact on our retirement income. Had I a retired as planned in 2003, our investment income would have been significantly less than it is today.

What President Bush is suggesting is to convert the floor of Social Security into an elevator by creating individual accounts that are subject to market changes. For some these accounts could increase their retirement income but for others they could result is less income upon retirement. There is no denying the market, over time, goes up and down. President Bush suggested that a bond fund could protecting retirees future investments from market changes. The president isn’t telling you that in a period of rising interest rates, like we are starting today, bonds actually dropped in value and you can have a huge capital loss in bond funds or an individual bonds within your investment portfolio during periods of rising interest rates.

There is a place for equity investments in retirement planning. The correct place is in ADDITION to the guarantees of Social Security and pensions. Thus in addition to the fact that the individual accounts DO NOT solve the Social Security funding issue, they also fail to be a sound component of good retirement planning based on market fluctuations that such investments experience.

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 14, 2005
The correct place is in ADDITION to the guarantees of Social Security and pensions.

This is exactly the plan set up for government employees today. It's called the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), for which a specified amount of income, by dollar or percentage, is set aside as tax exempt income into this retirement plan. Also, we pay into SS, which would assist if not totally guarantee some income to future retirees.

I plan on retiring in about 12 years. I expect to have accumulated into my TSP account about $150-250K, which is more than alot of retirees, but in no way, enough to subsidize my present standard of living for any significant length of time, ie 10-20 years after my retirement, which is what I'd expect to live after I retire, at age 66. SS, I would hope, would enable me to be reasonably sure that at least I'd have something coming in. It all depends on how I handle my money. But, admittedly, I'm fairly lucky for having this. Most workers will not.

COL, it's a good plan. It will hopefully keep me off of welfare in my retirement, but give me more than a subsistence, and substandard of living. Doing away with SS entirely will offer absolutely no guarantees for my retirement, which I spent my entire career working as a good citizen. I shouldn't just be thrown to the dogs if the stock market crashes, and my appx. $200K just disolves just before retirement.

Bush does not understand the stock market. He didn't understand baseball. He didn't understand oil companies. He was born with a silver spoon that enables him to not ever have to worry about shit. Having the likes of him making these kinds of money decisions for the rest of us is scary, to say the least. I guess one thing he does seem to understand, with the help of his bosses, is how to pad the pockets of the CEO's on Wall Street, for instance, who would stand to make windfall profits on his retirement scheme.
on May 14, 2005
dabe

AMEM Good Luck!
on May 14, 2005
There's the buzzword mentality again. Prs. Bush's plan is not perfect, I grant you, but any plan submitted before Congress is subject to change by the committees and houses. There is nothing requiring anyone to use the "individual" portion of their Social Security on the stock market. The point here is CHOICE (something the democrats were all for, until Prs. Bush uttered the word). Every nay sayer I read and hear on this subject uses the buzzword "Stock Market" as if it was the only form of investment out there. What is to stop any individual from using the individual portion of their Social Security exactly as you decribe?

For me, I think they should just take the whole Social Security program and replace it with the TSP.
on May 14, 2005
The problem is that the Bush plan DOES not make good investment sense because no person can know what the market will be like at the time of their retirement. What happens if the market is down and the retimenent income floor is not there? The fact they had a CHOICE will not change the negative impact in their income! To insert this market risk into the base of a persons retirement income is not sound retirement planning. In addition, the individual accounts DO NOT solve the funding issues of Social Security and in fact make them worse. The presidents plan is not only not perfect it is a BIG MISTAKE! . The place for investments in stocks, bonds or real estate is OVER AND ABOVE the base of Social Security benefits!
on May 14, 2005
No, the problem is the current plan is going belly up, and the Congressional Democrat plan is... Um.... er... Oh yeah, they have no new ideas, only old stupidity.

The point is, Prs. Bush's plan may not be everything we'd want, but it is better than what we will have if we listen to the stone wallers and naysayers.

Since it isn't the job of Congress to sit around waiting for word from the White House, and the Republicans aren't going to come up with an alternate plan that contradicts Prs. Bush's plan, the only things left are to see what the Houses of Congress will do with the bill; or sit around doing absolutely nothing but whining and looking like idiots (as the Congressional Democrats are doing).

As long as Americans are content to blame Bush for everything and let Congress slide, Congress will keep accepting their role as "followers".
on May 14, 2005
The problem is that the Bush plan DOES not make good investment sense because no person can know what the market will be like at the time of their retirement. What happens if the market is down and the retimenent income floor is not there?


I love how you put your spin on this! That is "exactly" why you will only be allowed to invest NO MORE than 4% total!
on May 14, 2005
ParaTed2K

The Bush individual account plan does NOTHING to solve the issue you mention. You say it is not everything - It is NOTHING and in fact it makes the Social Security shortfall larger because of the trillions that would be diverted into the individual accounts. What needs to happen is we need to increase the retirement age because people are living longer and increase the money going into the trust fund so it will be able to pay the benefits promised.

drmiler

That 4% is 1/3 of the Social Security tax. It will divert trillions from the trust fund which is needed to pay the benefits of people who are too old for the individual accounts. In addition, it DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM Bush is talking about! Who would suggest a sloution to a problem that makes the problem worse? Answer George W. Bush.
on May 14, 2005
sure ColGene, take more from people while guarenteeing fewer will ever benefit from it. Good plan.

You sound more and more like an idiot Congressional Democrat everyday.
on May 14, 2005
It is better to tax those who have more then they can ever spend a little more then to deny millions of people the retirement they NEED to live! I do not care what you call it but I know is is the right course of action for America!
on May 14, 2005

ParaTed, and DrMiler,

Why did you bite?  I did not read the article, but I read the first line of the first response and knew exactly what it was about. and that it is 100% wrong.

So why do you bother?

on May 14, 2005
It is better to tax those who have more then they can ever spend a little more then to deny millions of people the retirement they NEED to live! I do not care what you call it but I know is is the right course of action for America!


Another word from the completely ignorant!! I figured you would at least know that income has nothing to do with the ability to pay. Cash flow is everything!! The guy who makes $10 million, but whose cost of living is $10.5 million is far less able to afford an extra expense than the guy who makes $20,000 and lives on $18,000.

And please don't prove your stupidity by saying anything braindead like, "the rich guy should be able to live on less than $10 million", because news flash to the numbskull, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS (and especially not the Government's Business) HOW MUCH THE RICH GUY LIVES ON.... It is HIS money, NOT YOURS!!!!!!

So why do you bother?


Because it is an open forum and once in awhile ColGene's ignorance is fun to mess with.

on May 14, 2005
I'm glad that some people have faith in the SS system as it stands today. I'm glad that some people have recieved enough money out of the system to retire on or to supplement their retirements. That being said....I don't think I can count on getting back 1/2 of what I have paid into the system. All studies show that by the time I retire or my husband retires, the system will be either bankrupt or paying out only 1/2 to 1/3 of what was anticipated.

So I would rather stick with TSP or other retirement plans. It should be my choice though....don't you think? If I'm not going to see the money, why not lable it more accurately...."Tax" I don't have much choice in my taxes....or my SS.
on May 15, 2005
drmiler

That 4% is 1/3 of the Social Security tax. It will divert trillions from the trust fund which is needed to pay the benefits of people who are too old for the individual accounts. In addition, it DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM Bush is talking about! Who would suggest a sloution to a problem that makes the problem worse? Answer George W. Bush.


I think you math is screwed! There is no possible way in hell that "4%" is 1/3 of the SS tax! I'm sure glad that you don't do my books.
on May 15, 2005

ParaTed, and DrMiler,
Why did you bite? I did not read the article, but I read the first line of the first response and knew exactly what it was about. and that it is 100% wrong.
So why do you bother?


Just because he's an asshat!
on May 15, 2005
drmiler - again you show you are DUMB. Social Security Tax rates are 6.2 % on the individual and 6.2% paid by the employer. That is 12.4% in total. Thus, 4% is about 1/3 of 12.4%. HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID?

Everything in my blog is not only correct but any financial planner would agree that the analysis is sound. The Bush plan has no saving grace except for the fact that it would provide for the possibility of intergenerational transfer of wealth. This would happen if there were resources in the individual account at the death of the owner. Under Social Security that transfer is limited to survivor benefits paid to the spouse or dependent children after the death of a worker receiving Social Sceurity benefits..
3 Pages1 2 3