What Am I Missing - Aren't IRA's Which We Already Have The Same Thing * Is

[global1]

touting as PRA's - Personal Retirement Accounts. What's the difference?

Individual Retirement Accounts vs Personal Retirement Accounts

[SheilaT]

1. The real difference

is that right now IRA's, 401(k), 403(b) and there's another one I can't recall are all IN ADDITION to social security. The private accounts are intended as a way to discontinue ss.

Social Security has been the best program ever. It has kept millions of people from utter poverty, and it's those who have no idea what good it has done who want to eliminate it.

Keep in mind all those who had their entire retirement savings wiped out when Enron crashed.

[brindis_desala]

2. They want to make them mandatory the red flag in whole rotten scheme.

[fob]

3. IRA's help with your retirement and supplement SS, Private Accounts

will destroy SS and hinder your retirement, so BIG DIFFERENCE. Other than that, you are correct.

[KerryReallyWon]

4. Good question!!

It's just a way to help is buddies get richer off the fees. It is PRIVATIZATION, nothing more, and they can and will be for profit. Soc. Sec. is not run that way now. Social Sec. is 99% payout with a 1& overhead!! Not for profit. Investment houses charge fees to work with your money. I don't make enough to "afford" the cost of doing business. Like you said, we have IRA's.

[melissinha]

I think so...however

I think that forcing this program on everyone... especially those who do not care to or simply do not understand investment is wrong besides the TRUE PURPOSE of his plan.

It didn't work in the U.K...it won't work here...

Also..we have already heard this wolf cry wolf back in 1978 when he lost a campaign for Congress... and it didn't happen when he predicted, therefore how can we trust him now?

Both USA Today and the Texas Observer have reported Bush claimed in 1978 that Social Security would go broke in 1988 unless Congress privatized the system. As the Observer reports, Bush "warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves."

According to USA Today, as a congressional candidate in 1978, George W. Bush was claiming "Social Security would go broke in 10 years" - 1988. Even then, he said the only way to fix this crisis was to privatize the system.

This is proof positive that Bush will say anything - no matter how ridiculously inaccurate - to claim Social Security is in "crisis" and needs to be privatized. Nothing he says about Social Security being in crisis today should be regarded as credible once these past statements are taken into account.

[boneygrey]

5. The PRAs

would be funded from a portion of the payroll tax you pay.

[prodigal_green]

6. IRAs are voluntary risks one takes with ones money

PRAs will be compulsory gambling.

[MNBiker]

7. The idea is this....

Lets say your 20 and they take 2% of your FICA tax and put it in your name. (That might only be $100 to start) Now you will personally own part of your FICA account and it can be passed on to your family. Getting back to the dollars $100 dollars invested at age 20 might be worth $800 at age 50. I'm all for it, federal employees have something like this. Why not me?

[CBGLuthier]

8. And then the market crashes

And nobody has anything.

That is the point of Social Security.

[MNBiker]

9. Even if we only invested in T bills, we'ed be better off.

[prolesunited]

19. Social Security is NOT an investment plan

It's an INSURANCE plan

[AirAmFan]

22. Still mainly true. Was COMPLETELY true until the 1980s. Before

Ronald Reagan put Alan Greenspan in charge of a "Social Security Commission", FICA cash flow every year since the 1930s had been just enough to pay current benefits to retirees, with very little left over.

But the "Baby Boom" after World War II meant that Social Security would HAVE TO BECOME PARTLY AN INVESTMENT with guaranteed benefits (subject to mortaility), sometime before the Baby Boom bulge started retiring in the teens of the twenty-first century. Thus a pure SOCIAL INSURANCE before the 1980s became more like DEFINED BENEFIT PENSIONS under Reagan and Greenspan. They raised FICA rates by 22 percent, and "invested" the "Trust Fund" in loans to Congress, which were used to cut top income tax rates by 60 percent for the rich (from 70 percent to 28 percent).

Now, as Baby Boom retirements are only a decade or so away, Greenspan and company fear that SSA might gain some political control over the economy with trillions of dollars of actual cash to manage to pay guaranteed benefits (see post #20 in this thread). As payout time looms, "loans" to Congress don't seem like viable investments for FICA cash flow anymore, if Social Security is going to actually be able to pay out what it has promised. To stave off the threat of "scoialism", Greenspan insists that Social Security must drop guaranteed benefits and become a DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN.

[babylonsister]

10. Can you imagine an entire nation of

homeless people? Errr, other than Shrub cronies, that is. That's a very scary thought. Could that be their ultimate goal? Talk about power!

[olacan]

13. As I

understand the plan participation is to be voluntary. So if you do not want take part say. no.

Also does anyone have information on Galveston TX. they have a private plan instead of SS I think.

[elehhhhna]

12. You have IRA or 401(K) already, and if you get an employer match,

You have the best deal on the face of the earth. (We get an automatic 50% on all contributions). Do that.

[TexasSissy]

11. The private accounts will be MUCH more restrictive.

The talk is that since they will be replacing part of what should be a guaranteed government "program," you will be told HOW you can invest the $$$$. In IRAs, you can invest however you see fit. It's your money. You are in total control of it.

Second, the government will still have control over the account (which gives them the power to tell you that you can invest in A or B, and that's it....and in certain percentages, even).

Third - FEES. In an IRA, you are in total control of the institution that you choose to keep your IRA in, which you of course would probably base on their fees, as well as their choices. In the private accounts, the government will "authorize" certain institutions to house the private accounts. The worker will not have as large a choice in institutions. And the FEES they charge - they'll be answerable to the governmnet about fees, not you. If you don't like their fees, what are you going to do? Take your private account $$$ down the street to the other institution that charges the same fees?

The joke is on the younger workers who think this is a good thing and will give them more $$$ in the long run. Out of the above fees (Social Security does NOT PAY FEES currently), will also come the HUGE COST of the conversion. This is currently not an expense, of course.

In the end, we will all end up with less $$$ for retirement, but the Republicans will have done away with the Social Security System in a number of years. Which is their goal.

[ROakes1019]

14. Breaking Social Security

In addition to all the minuses of privatization of Social Security, letting some people opt out will break the system because the money from those paying in now goes to those already on Social Security. Taking away that income will leave SS broke much sooner than 2042, at which point it will be only 70% or so lacking. It's a deliberate scheme to break the whole system by sleazeball Bush and gang.

[cestpaspossible]

15. IRA's do nothing to destroy Social Security

which is the goal of Bush's plan.


But yes, that is one of the points that should be repeated incessantly by our side: "We already have private accounts, they're called IRA's and 401k's."

[Vinca]

16. Money is money, so . . .

why don't they invest social security money more wisely so it gets a better return? Of course, it goes without saying they'd have to quit looting the fund to finance the Lawrence Welk museum.

[gizmo1979]

17. Not everybody has an IRA.

So fatcats see a chance to squeeze every nickel out of the middle class they can to fund their empirical visions!

[EVDebs]

18. Yep. And you can always buy an annuity too. Reagan's Tax Cut

in 1981 is the same M.O. the Republicans are using this time around. In 1982-83 they created the Greenspan Commission to scare up a Social Security reform that resulted in huge surplus, which Congress then started raiding. Tax cut in 1981 resulted in tax increases in 1982, '84, '86, 1990, and '93.

So, when they pay for Bush's huge tax cut of 2001, they will need to divert a surplus in SS in order to pay for that tax cut to the wealthiest, just like Reagan's cut in 1981. You'd expect this anyway since many of the same people are back in action again !

Only this time around, Joe Sixpack is aware of the situation and realizes that his job is on the line if these SS reforms go into effect, as he wasn't aware of what was going on in the '80's and '90's with manufacturing jobs being outsourced due to the huge tax breaks accompanying the budding 'globalization' as it's called now. It all boils down to a Race to the Bottom only this time, besides manufacturing jobs, service jobs are being outsourced. And any pension and healthcare benefits...those are gone too. Stripping individuals of pension and healthcare benefits to more effectively have global corporations 'compete' with themselves (actually, wage arbitrage to the lowest amount !) is crippling the middle class.

Bush's great skill is in getting the middle class to accompany him in his plans to have them commit economic class suicide ! Pat Buchanan has spelled this out in his article "Suicide By Free Trade".

Dems should wake up and fight back.

[AirAmFan]

20. Norquist wants the FICA revenue stream for IRAs, but Greenspan

insists that Social Security must also eliminate guaranteed benefits ASAP, and before 2018 at all costs.

"When the privatized account reaches $225,000, the FDR Democrat becomes a Reagan Republican." That's a paraphrase of the argument rightwing extremist guru Grover Norquist made for privatizing CALPERS, the California state employee pension fund. The idea is that Americans are too stupid to look up the monthly benefit their likely privatized benefit would buy in a table of single premium annuities, and compare it to the GUARANTEED monthly benefit they have now, according to the statements SSA mails them every year.

So, to maximize conversions of FDR Democrats to Reagan Republicans ASAP, Norquist wants privatized accounts to build up as fast as possible. Since the vast majority of workers already are forced to pay FICA, Norquist wants that money shifted to privatized accounts NOW.

Also, Alan Greenspan, Daniel J.B. Mitchell, and other extreme-right-wingers in charge of our pursestrings are fearful of the "socialism" that might ensue after 2018 under the current benefit structure, or if the remaining positive FICA cash flow were somehow protected from further "borrowing" by Congress. For ideological reasons, Greenspan and company want to avoid the situation where Congress repays what it has borrowed from positive FICA cash flow over the past 20 years and SSA might manage trillions of dollars in actual cash. They fear the example of "Pension Fund Socialism" set by "South Africa Disinvestment", which forced an end to Apartheid for their good friends in Pretoria.

Finally, Wall Street looks forward to "management fees" that would ultimately reach 20 percent of FICA, according to Prof Peter Diamond of MIT, the world's foremost expert on the economics of privatizing Social Security. Rethuglicans know that a percentage of that loot would come back to them in the form of bribes and tribute--I mean campaign "contributions".See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=227x259 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1551877 .

[melissinha]

21. Thatcher tried this in UK

and it didn't work. period.it doesn't work. Bush already said in 1978 that SS would topple in 1988, it didn't happen. that's it. forget it... Besides the fact that Reid said it ain't gonna happen...

[global1]

23. Sure The Baby Boomers Will Be Retiring Soon And Become A Big Draw On....

the SS System - but - as a big cohort - as they were putting into the system - shouldn't there be that money in it to take out?

i.e., Large #'s of BB putting into the system during their working years = $ IN
Probably a lesser amount of BB taking out of the system when they retire (cause we lost some during this timespan) = $OUT

Shouldn't there be enough $ in the system to cover this? $IN > $OUT

But *Co raided SS. (and many laughed at Gore's Lock-Box).

[bush_is_wacko]

24. Yes, think opposite. bush isn't concerned with propping up

Social Security. He wants to prop up corporate America. It is flailing. Really, I've found the best way to interpret what bullshitter says is to listen to what he says and go completely in the opposite direction. I UNDERSTAND bush speak well now, I just don't agree with it!

He's asking us to entrust our money to his lovely corporate buddies.
And it appears to me as if he is dipping into the till as we speak so he is also trying to cover his ass over exactly how much is missing.

There have been a few random references to that fact from some of those vowing to fight him. they are trying to minimize it, but I think it is far more serious than they want to admit. His dipping, I mean, not the "crisis."