stupid useless politicians are proven once again that they would rather score political points then lead the country. We need strong forceful leadership at the moment. instead we have a bunch of clutching hens at the levers of our power. We have alot of infrastructure to rebuild, where are the bold plans to rebuild it? We have a problem with energy where are the plans to produce more energy, to find, drill, pump more oil? We have a 3 trilllion dollar budget, where is the leaders that can find $300billion in waste, fraud and earmarks and start paying off the debt? where are the people who care about this country? Not in Washington it would seem.
At 50,000/yr with starting at 20yrs old growing at a 3% compounded monthly the account would grow to 715,000. if you figure a death at 95 yrs old this account would give approx $25,000/year tax free. this would be about half your income and enough to support the bare requirements. your 401k,ira/pension would cover the frills you want in retirement. If you die early all those funds could be transferd to your children thus trhe account would be inflation protected after the first 2 or three generations. Say you die with 100,000 still in the account. That money would be transfered to your children.
If your spouse was not working etc this would be were the governemt would have been funding the account after the tax refunds etc.
To get more bang for your tax dollar at the start of the plan all new births could be funded with a 1000 and the child tax credit/partial eic credit would be placed in this account while the child is growing up.
JMO of course but I have yet to find a more comprehensive plan.
A mobile account in your name that can not be touched until you are at retirement age.
15% of all income must be deposited in the account. (employers still must pay 7.5% into this account)
The account is in your name and will be periodacially reviewed by the SS admin to make sure you are on track to meet your needs in retirement. If you are behind all tax refunds will be deposited into this account until you catch up. you can place addtional funds in the account at any time.
you must invest in only 100% governmental security investments. No fees will be charged on these accounts. All earnings will grow tax free/ all withdrawls will be tax free. withdrawals will be on a monthly basis and depends on the account vaule at retirement.
If people are behind and show they can not get caugth up to be able to support themselves in old age(the crack fallers) the government will place the amount needed into the account to ensure the account will be brought current. At death the amount the government placed into the account plus interest will be forfeited back to the government.
All accounts can be transfered evenly to the children upon death and they can only add the addtional funds to their retirement accounts
If you die without direct heirs your account is forfeited to the government to fund those accounts that have fallen behind.
this plan would solve retirement within about 2 generations due to compounding interest, it would have the american citizen fund the national debt instead of forgien powers, it would build wealth, it would save the governemt trillions of dollars because funding retirement account early due to compounding interest is alot cheaper then funding the retirement itself. It would also reduce the need to vote for your political leaders to ensure your retirement. It would require the government to balance it's budget better since it would not have a shadow kitty it can dip into at will.
Ok then find the holes in this?
BTW if you invest 5,000 at birth for a child he will retire with a million dollars. what happens to 15% of your pay after 100 years? 200 years?
We could do the same with the medicare tax
Like I said in another post: "What about people who sell a website for 100M or win the lottery at 23 which means they would no longer be contributing to your annuity plan?
Hmm 15% of 100million in a fixed interest account would be plenty to retire on don't you think? 15% of say a 3million in lottery proceeds in a protected savings account should be fine for retirement. 15% of all income would be fine don't you think?
Heck, what about the people who get injured and can't work for most of their lives; what covers them
Since i have Personal responsibility I have insurance to cover that. shouldn't everyone? If that fails I have my son. As a side note The government mandates that you have to have car insurance to drive a car, they can mandate you have to have disability insurance/healthcare insurance/ddeath insurance etc. I would rather pay the money to regulated insurance companies then the government.
I've already given you examples of how people could easily fall through the cracks
Yes there will be people that fall thru the cracks and as a compassionate nation with have charities for that. We could also cover those cracks instead of covering everyone in fear of the few that fall thru the cracks.
It would be an assured "safety net" that people could rely on.
Yes we need a safety net we just don't need the government to have any possible chance of ever touching that safety net. Our present SS system shows that if you allow the government near your safety net it becomes very thin and full of holes and will not support you when you fall.
I.e. if one invention that led to 20 others is erased from history so are the other 20 that followed it. Why not stack the deck as much in our favor as possible?
Besides it being murder that about sums up my belief on why abortion should be outlawed. think of the 50miilion inventions that will never be.
That's kind of silly considering not all people have kids. Without thinking to hard about it I can think of 3 late thirty something couples I know who have no kids. There are also many people who never marry and never have kids (hopefully). Then there are the ones who's kids die before them, don't care about them, etc...
Well then this would give them a reason to stop being selfish people and start popping out some kids. as far as order etc. We went 150 years as a country without SS/medicare/drug program/welfare etc with people saving for retirement/families taken the responsibility for their parents,grandparents,kids. we had less divorces, more nuclear familes, less corruption in government, less laws and less governmental intervention. And we DID JUST FINE. We had a major depression and FDR used the problem to seize power for his party, to buy votes for generations and it made things worse.
Who decided that we needed licenses for driving & owning guns or a passport to travel, or that we have to pay taxes or that we couldn't drive while drinking, etc?
All of the above examples are for population control. they are power trips by the government to control the population. We went 100's of years without any of those laws and we did fine as a country. We do not "need" them. DUI laws did not stop DUI's, driver licenses does not stop people from driving without one, no mexican has a passport but they seem to get into the country easily enough. Explain to me why you need a licence for a gun? Never heard of such a thing. Why do you need a license to drive? You only need to pass a test to show that you can drive why do you need a license? (answer it allows the government to track you and identifiy you)
That's where you're out of touch "IMO" because letting that happen would most definitely come right back around to bit you in the ass
Yeah they will charge the washington dc mall in their wheelchairs and walkers..it will only take about 6 months of horror stories to make the next generation start saving. If people understand the government will not bail them out from bad/stupid decision and behaviors those behaviors will change. the present governmental programs enable selfish behavior/spending beyond your means/ going into debt/ etc
You want less lazy/selfish/greedy/ people you MUST change the policy and laws that have made it possible for these people to not only live but thrive. Darwin's theory states that these people should be dead! We are messing with EVOLUTION. (see you just have to frame the statement in the right way for the liberals to fall in line.)
<"If these people had the extra 15% of their pay to invest/save they wouldn't have to reley on a faceless buracrat in order to survive. Making them save 15% of their pay is alot different then confiscating that 15% of pay with the vauge promise of giving them some little amount of money in the future. If the goal is to provide for people in their old age there are many ways to reach that goal besides handing trillions of dollars to 535 people that use the proceeds to buy votes and increase their power">
--> Like I said in another post: "What about people who sell a website for 100M or win the lottery at 23 which means they would no longer be contributing to your annuity plan? They could live 40 yrs just fine and then make just 1 or 2 bad investments or entrepreneurial ventures and poof it's gone. They have paid nothing into the annuity plan and have nothing to live on. Yes, that's an extreme example but there are plenty of others examples that would show others who wouldn't be covered by your plan. Heck, what about the people who get injured and can't work for most of their lives; what covers them? My plan does. I'm all for an amendment stipulating that the "safety net" money not be used for anything but the social security type payments it was meant to be used for. Make it a requirement that the account be evaluated twice a year to ensure compliance with that amendment.
I would love to use your plan (seriously) but for the fact that it would only work in utopia "IMO". I've already given you examples of how people could easily fall through the cracks. A comprehensive and well thought out plan must come "as close as possible" to covering "all possible variables and situations". Unfortunately, I don't think yours does. A plan needs to cover "everybody" regardless of how they end up getting to the end state of being 60-70yrs old. My plan would not be a vague promise either. It would be an assured "safety net" that people could rely on.
BTW, part of the greatness of having a "safety net" is that it helps extends the entrepreneurial spirit as long as possible. A 60 something could "gamble" on making the next MSFT/AAPL without worrying about having "nothing" if they mistakenly were beginning the next (inset failed company). Having a safety net means people can take "risks" later in life that they would most likely not take if they thought they could end up penniless. I'd hate to think we could lose out on some great innovations just because a few 50-60yr old people were too scared of becoming destitute to take another chance. BTW, I'm not saying that there are millions of 50-60yr olds that are budding innovators but, per the Swiss cheese model, "it only takes one" missed opportunity to have an adverse affect on numerous future events. I.e. if one invention that led to 20 others is erased from history so are the other 20 that followed it. Why not stack the deck as much in our favor as possible?
JMO of course but I have yet to find a more comprehensive plan.
<"And who decides what's for their own good? The 535 pampered brats in Washington?
what if they decide it's for your own good that you can't trade in the market anymore? Or its for your own good to get your leg amputated or its for your own good to be on antidepressives? or it's for your own good that you are placed into an old's folks home to "save costs">
--> Who decided that we needed licenses for driving & owning guns or a passport to travel, or that we have to pay taxes or that we couldn't drive while drinking, etc?.... You can't just say "we don't need more regulation" because it's a moving target that has to evolve/change as time goes by. A person can't just pick and choose "which" rules they will follow and which they will not (unless they chose to leave the country but I'd submit that the sum total of our "regulations" are still better than the "sum total" of most other countries).
<"Look at it this way. What would happen if the stupid/lazy/greedy people came into retirement with nothing.? that they were eating cat food to survive because they spend all their money? Why is it the government's repsonsibility to save this people? Let them starve to death for all I care. Yes its cold but its also about personal responsibility.">
--> That's where you're out of touch "IMO" because letting that happen would most definitely come right back around to bit you in the ass. In another post you mentioned people being fat and happy now but that it could change quickly. If you want to see a country in turmoil/civil war just keep thinking that it doesn't matter if a substantial number people end up starving, cold, etc. which is what would happen without social security. Completely aside from any moral issues, it's less a matter of the govt "being responsible for them" and more an issue of keeping "good order and discipline" (to borrow a military phrase) in the country. Do you seriously not realize the incredible turmoil that would occur if we followed the thought process that you described above? Like it or not, taking care of people is a necessary part of keeping "good order and discipline" which in turn allows everyone to have a much better life.
<"Do they not have children to support them in their old age?">
--> That's kind of silly considering not all people have kids. Without thinking to hard about it I can think of 3 late thirty something couples I know who have no kids. There are also many people who never marry and never have kids (hopefully). Then there are the ones who's kids die before them, don't care about them, etc...
"Now, all I can hope for is a move of God or McCain picks up Huckabee as his running mate."
--> McCain/Huckabee VS. Clinton/Obama would be an incredible race to watch and participate in. The downside would be the probable repeat of a hanging chad election... Uggg!