1/16/2005

I support private accounts

I support private retirement accounts provided by the federal government. Anyone who's ever moved jobs knows that rolling over your 401(k) is a pain. And many service industry workers don't even get 401(k)s. So let's create a national 401(k) account for every American. If we want to enforce savings, an additional payroll tax can be applied, with a subsidy for those who don't make enough to effectively save for retirement. Citizens could chose their own brokerage firm to manage this account, and employers could provide a match like they do now (if you're lucky, that is).

Notice I didn't say anything about eliminating Social Security Insurance. That's a guaranteed benefit you can count on. Let's keep it that way.

That means Social Security can't be allowed to go bankrupt. Fortunately, its finances are in good shape, a fact that even Republicans have been forced to admit. In fact, Social Security's finances are getting better because of the amazing productivity improvements of the American worker. Pessimistic conservatives are not the ones we want running a plan to replace Social Security.

Keeping Social Security fiscially sound means not investing in private accounts, a move that will cost $15 trillion over the next four decades (those are CBO numbers). Instead, let's focus on fixing the overall federal budget problems, and create a new program that allows people to invest in their own private accounts for retirement income that supplements Social Security.

10 Comments:

At 12:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If social security is all that, ie worth protecting etc, why do you need to support anything else?

 
At 12:41 PM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

Social Security is insurance. It ensures that no American is poor in their old age. It's not supposed to make you rich.

Private investment accounts separate from Social Security would allow people to save extra money for more comfort in their old age.

But the basic safety net of Social Security must always be there just in case.

 
At 11:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That didn't answer the question.

 
At 11:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure it did.

 
At 8:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pessimistic Conservatives" if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You are a fucken retard. You spew your garbage like it's fact when in reality you haven't experienced or know shit about a damn thing you post. All your post and thoughts come from what others tell you. Why don't you try talking about something you have lived. Why? because your little sheltered liberal life is boring.

 
At 9:03 AM, Blogger ryan said...

"Pessimistic Conservatives" if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You are a fucken retard.

All your post and thoughts come from what others tell you. Why don't you try talking about something you have lived.
Let me get this straight here, buddy... Luke is a conservative? And mentally retarded? If that's the case, I'd say he's doing pretty well. Seriously though, what exactly would qualify a person to write about Social Security and private 401(k) accounts? Isn't paying in enough? I guess I don't follow your request that he write about something he's lived... if you want to read his personal site, I'm sure you can find a link. Ugh.

 
At 9:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It did not answer the question.

It described the difference between social security and retirement plans.

It also alluded to the obvious conclusion that both are necessary. However, fails to address the fundemental question; If Social Security is all that and a bag of chips, why is the supplemental retirement needed?

My position is that by itself, Social Security is insufficent. Moreover, it is too expensive for what it provides. The cost of Soc Sec could allow individual investors to afford themselves a complete retirement were it left in thier hands to do so.

Last thought, for the fearmongers that will pop up and say, "What if they loose it all!" There are simple requirements to limit risk that can be introduced which essentially eliminate this risk over the long run. Its a red herring.

 
At 10:18 AM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

Experience with privitization in other countries like Chile, UK, and Sweden shows that it does not perform as well as its US boosters are suggesting.

And how do you ignore the $15 trillion transition cost?

Social Security is not "all that". It is one of the most effective government programs of all time. It does what it's supposed to do: keep our elderly out of poverty.

I would like to see a national 401(k) plan because we can do more to help all Americans do better with savings and be comfortable in their retirement.

 
At 4:28 PM, Blogger Chuck Olsen said...

My response

 
At 4:42 PM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

I might have to make that my "new email" sound, Chuck.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home