Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
"Monique Y. Mudama" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Even though I just ripped into you a few posts ago, you do have a
> point here. It would be interesting if social security could be
> altered so that (this is just off the top of my head here, so I'm sure
> it's not by any means perfect, but maybe the glimmering of an idea):
> 1) By default, everyone pays into SS
> 2) Instead of the current system, every person has an individual SS
> account, from which their own retirement would later be drawn
> 3) That account would invest in CDs or some other extremely low-risk
> setup. Perhaps it could work like a bank instead, with an interest
> based on balance (I'll admit I don't know enough about how banks work
> be sure that could work).
> 4) There would be a non-trivial, optional exam. If one passed the
> one could choose what to do with the money that would typically be
> to SS: leave it there, invest it, spend it on wine, women and song.
> Whatever. But the exam would have to be good enough to ensure that
> taker is financially well-educated, and taking the exam would have to
> expensive enough to be a deterrent (shouldn't be a problem since it
> would have to cover the costs of formulating the exam, etc).
Why so complicated? Just give people the option to *choose* between
public or private SS programs. The same for schooling. If I send my
children to a private school I wouldn't have to pay the tax and even
get back what I already payed since I started working. That would make
public schools compete against private schools.