Text 1955, 68 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 13:49:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2401.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Wesley Struebing to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <dh8c82pm8lvuv2vnifftv6ig982l19qcqr@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <SBFfg.32782$fb2.4146@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:06:59 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <cupb82dpdgc5neaut730lifb8jn9h4lhr4@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >        Actually minorities would probably be the biggest beneficiary of 
>> >any reform that (as the ones floated by GOP) would allow you to own the 
>> >accounts and pass them along as part of your estate.
>> 
>> The rich would benefit because they might get slightly higher returns
>> and unlike those who are economically dependent on Social Security
>> they don't have to worry about the consequences of market downturns,
>> making the uneven returns of the market and an individual account a
>> worthwhile tradeoff for the slight average advantage it has over
>> T-bills. 
>     This is a stretch. Over the course of 40-50 years, there is little 
>concern over market downturns. They tend to run about 8% for ANY 20 year 
>period you care to count (including the 20 year periods that ended in 
>2000 and 2001, the worst of the bust. The same for the 20 year period 
>that ended in the mid-60s with their bust, etc. 
>      That slight advantage over 20 years is roughly double. 
>
>
>This assumes of course that the Social Security accounts
>> would not be entirely covered by the guaranteed annuity provision,
>> which is I think a given, 
>   There is a baseline guaranteed annuity, then you get to invest the 
>rests.
>
Yes, there is.  And it is sub-subsistence level.  The part "you get to
invest" is not going to be invested, and the current
(mis)administration knows that
>
>They would also benefit because
>> benefits would be reduced, meaning, all other things being equal, that
>> Social Security would take less of their income. They can insure
>> themselves more efficiently than Social Security can.

With more risk.  There is also economy of scale.
>
>     Explain this one to me again. I see no way that SS would take less 
>of their income.

If I'm reading the attributions properly, you just said it yourself:
">   There is a baseline guaranteed annuity, then you get to invest
the 
>rests."

That part you get to invest is not SS, and it is voluntary.

--

Wes Struebing

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
                                                                             
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)