Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Previous message: Mark Krebs: "Yes - why not make people earning over $90,000 pay their share?"
- In reply to: Mason A. Clark: "Solution to Soc Sec problem"
- Next in thread: Jim Blair: "Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem"
- Reply: Jim Blair: "Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:32:43 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:20:22 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQQQ> wrote:
>Have the government invest the SS fund in private stocks
>and bonds, rather than in treasury bonds as it does now.
>
>That is to say, invest in the growth and profits of the
>economy.
Treasury bonds are based on the taxable capacity of the whole economy
rather than particular corporate stocks. So SS's T-bonds are
_already_ keyed to the growth of the economy.
>This would be safer than letting individuals do the
>investing and possibly loser their savings.
Right. SS is like insurance in that the risk is spread around, so the
returns are more reliable.
>And the government could negotiate with Wall Street
>for very low commissions
>
> Why not? What's the flaw(s)?
Why not just let private interests invest for their own maximum
profit, and repay SS's treasury bonds by taxing the resulting larger
economic pie?
-- Roy L
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Previous message: Mark Krebs: "Yes - why not make people earning over $90,000 pay their share?"
- In reply to: Mason A. Clark: "Solution to Soc Sec problem"
- Next in thread: Jim Blair: "Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem"
- Reply: Jim Blair: "Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|