Chuck-lyn,
Nobody has been agitating for change to SS as vociferously, or as long, as the guys at the CATO institute. Their plan (see http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp32.pdf) for overhauling the system hinges on the idea you brought up of ofeering everyone a "buyout" bond (what they call a "recognition bond") that will be worth a certain amount at retirement age-- the bond's value is based on the amount he worker has contributed already to SS. If they take the bond, then they can take their half of the social security "contribution" each month (6.2% of their paycheck up to the ceiling) and invest it in their own account for retirement (the accounts would have some limits--you can't bet the farm on 90 day "put" options for "Styrofoam Lawn Ornaments, Inc"). Their employer's "contribution" (also 6.2%) would go intot he pot to pay for benefits to present retirees.
Nobody is forced into the plan--folks can stay with the present ponzi scheme "defined benefit" approach if they want to--and older folks certainly would.
To help answer some of the common objections, CATO has included several adjustments to the overall approach I described above. There are some significant potential pitfalls to this approach--I haven't studied it enough to say whether I think it makes sense overall or not. But, it is interesting, and goes well beyond the 2% approach mentioned by President Bush.
Something's gotta give, and (IMO) it would be best if the govt got out of the income redistribution biz--whether it is inter-generational or otherwise.
Regards,
samclem
Nobody has been agitating for change to SS as vociferously, or as long, as the guys at the CATO institute. Their plan (see http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp32.pdf) for overhauling the system hinges on the idea you brought up of ofeering everyone a "buyout" bond (what they call a "recognition bond") that will be worth a certain amount at retirement age-- the bond's value is based on the amount he worker has contributed already to SS. If they take the bond, then they can take their half of the social security "contribution" each month (6.2% of their paycheck up to the ceiling) and invest it in their own account for retirement (the accounts would have some limits--you can't bet the farm on 90 day "put" options for "Styrofoam Lawn Ornaments, Inc"). Their employer's "contribution" (also 6.2%) would go intot he pot to pay for benefits to present retirees.
Nobody is forced into the plan--folks can stay with the present ponzi scheme "defined benefit" approach if they want to--and older folks certainly would.
To help answer some of the common objections, CATO has included several adjustments to the overall approach I described above. There are some significant potential pitfalls to this approach--I haven't studied it enough to say whether I think it makes sense overall or not. But, it is interesting, and goes well beyond the 2% approach mentioned by President Bush.
Something's gotta give, and (IMO) it would be best if the govt got out of the income redistribution biz--whether it is inter-generational or otherwise.
Regards,
samclem