pointed out some interesting notes on the so called social security reform plan in their daily progress report dated 3 feb
. Most notable is the clearest explanation yet of the proposed benefit changes and their costs, from a WaPo article
workers who opt to divert some of their payroll taxes into individual accounts would "ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system… In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate." The Congressional Budget Office predicts an average of 3.3 percent gains, leaving most workers "with nothing but the guaranteed benefit." In other words, even assuming the market stays stable, unless workers received an unusually high rate of return on their investments, they would face significant cuts to their Social Security benefits
How is this better than what we have now? Is it the increased risk? Or maybe the lowered benefits? I know everyone is better off when the elderly have less money. After all, they are so frugal, they hardly inject any money into the economy on much needed consumer products like scented toilet paper and disposable toilet brushes. Then, they bitch about having to eat dog food so they can afford their medicine- medicine that, via the medicare drug-discount card program, would be cheaper for them if they had less money.
-Ben 16:29 EST |