Mumia W wrote: > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >> Mumia W wrote: >> >>>> And public schools are doing such a fine job of educating, too! >>>> >>> >>> Yes, they are. I was educated in a public school. >>> >> As was I. That is exactly the reason why none of my children will >> *ever* go to a public school. I like to think that I am succeeding >> in life *in spite* of the fact that I went to public school. >> > > Not everyone has the choice that you have. For *most* people, it's > either a free education, or no education. That's why public schools are > needed. > But it's not free. It still costs. The government is just taking the money from you (and everyone else) instead of giving you a choice. >>> And there are people who believe that America's laws should be >>> interpreted from the point of view of the Christian Bible--Pat >>> Robertson is one of them. Just because a few loons believe >>> something doesn't mean I have to buy it. >>> >> >> It's funny you bring this up. The thing is I am a conservative >> Christian *and* a Libertarian. I was having a converstion about this >> with my Pastor a few days ago. I was telling him that I think that >> laws banning drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc are wrong. All those >> things the liberals like to call "victimless crimes." My point is >> that, while *I* think those things are wrong, I have no right to >> force other people to abstain from them. People like Pat Robertson >> annoy me (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton fall into the same group in >> my mind) because they spend far too much time spouting off political >> nonesense and trying to have political influence and not enough time >> preaching the Word of God. I mean seriously, if you are you to have >> "Reverend" in front of your name, your full time occupation should >> not be politics. >> > > That's two things we agree on: Debian is a great O/S, and religion > should be kept of out the government. > I never said Debian was a great OS :-) >>>>> I agree that social security is all sorts of screwed up, but >>>>> not because it involves collecting money and spending it in >>>>> ways that might not directly benefit the person paying. >>>> >>>> >>>> It is a large part of it because it's pretty much a fact that the >>>> people would have been better off with the money to invest and >>>> save on their own. >>> >>> >>> No they are not. A few, knowledgeable individuals *might* be better >>> off, or they might screw up and choose the wrong investments and >>> lose most of it. >>> >> So, you believe that people are fundamentally stupid and need the >> government to babysit them? >> > > A person doesn't have to be stupid to not want to have to learn about > that stuff. And yes, even the stupid *deserve* retirement security. > This is not the government's job. > >>> The idea behind the Social Security system is that you shouldn't >>> have to know anything about stocks, bond or any other securities to >>> have your retirement protected. >>> >> That is why you hire someone who is an expert to do it for you. >> > > The experts at the Social Security Administration *are* doing it, and > they're doing an incredibly efficient job at it too. Social Security has > less than 1% administrative overhead. No private retirement options come > even close. > Uh, according to http://www.fool.com/school/basics/basics04.htm: "Administrative costs are the costs of recordkeeping, mailings, maintaining a customer service line, etc. These are all necessary costs, though they vary in size from fund to fund. The thriftiest funds can keep these costs below 0.2% of fund assets, while the ones who use engraved paper, colorful graphics, and phone answerers with high-falutin' accents might fail to bring administrative costs below 0.4% of fund assets." So the SSA is up to 5 times more wasteful than the "thrifty" private funds, and more than twice as wasteful as the worst of them. Besides, the gov't says that it is actually 2% (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5277&sequence=3): "Nevertheless, the $11 charge represents about 2 percent of the average contribution under a system of private accounts with contributions of 2 percent of payroll ($547 in 2001); assuming that percentage remained constant over time, the costs would reduce assets in an account at retirement by an identical 2 percent." > >>> And your retirement money shouldn't be entirely dependent upon the >>> twists and turns of the business cycle. >>> >> If you are smart they won't. Even if you are not smart, if you have >> the wherewithal to hire someone who is, they won't. >> [...] > > > Those people you'd hire screw up all the time, and they screw their > customers half the time. Social Security doesn't have that problem. > Social Security doesn't have fund managers that run off with all the > money. Social Security doesn't have brokers that churn and burn your > retirement nest egg. Social Security doesn't make risky investments just > to make a quick buck, and when their values collapse, they write you a > letter saying, "We invested in those ultra-high-yielding junk bonds > because we wanted you to get a lot of money, but now the bonds are > worthless, and we lost all your money. But it's not really our fault > because you were stupid enough to trust us." > > Social Security is not driven by a high profit motive; it's purpose is > to provide stable retirement income to people, and it does a fantastic > job of that. > There are funds out there that specialize in low risk investment. Some people are very risk tolerant and others are not. That is a personal decision, not one that should be made by the government. -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature