I had Accounting class last night, which gave me the perfect excuse to ignore the President's SOTU speech. Not that I would have watched it anyway.
Best morning-after quote goes to Jesse at Pandagon:
I honestly do think there was a typo in the propoganda sheet: this is the pwnership society, where we all get pwned by the government.
If that makes no sense to you, here's a translation. In the wonderful world of gaming, when you utterly and completely kick someone or something's ass, you 'pwn' it.
Seriously, though, what on earth is BushCo thinking with these proposed changes to Social Security? An 'ownership society' where you do not in fact own your own private account and any money left in it goes right back to the goverment when you die? If you're not going to make a real change in the structure of Social Security, then why do it at all?
On a personal note, the debate about Social Security has gotten Scott and I to talk a bit about retirement planning. We're going to have to ramp up our savings somehow, although how exactly we're going to do that with me in school and a bunch of debt already is unclear. We do have several 401ks already but haven't done much contributing the last 3 years or so due to our lowered incomes. Realistically we won't be able to save much of anything until I'm back in the workforce full-time, and that's 2 years off (and another student loan to pay off). It's a little scary when I think about how badly we're doing in retirement planning. So I try not to.
The one thing I do know is that should the BushCo plan come to pass, this family is not diverting one penny of their $ into a so-called 'private account'.
Comments (1)
Just wanted to let you know that I have been reading your blog the past couple of weeks and have enjoyed it. I do take issue with today's column.
You write "you do not in fact own your own private account and any money left in it goes right back to the goverment when you die" I would like to see the supporting evidence for this. From what I have read so far this is the opposite of what Bush has said, of course what really matters is what the law says.
In the State of the Union address Bush said, " In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away."
An article on MSNBC even states that a selling point to the proposal, again quoting Bush in Fargo today, "It's money that you can decide to leave to whomever you want. It's money that the government can never take away."
There are far many more problems with the proposal , like how will the privatization be paid for, and it does not fix the problem with Social Security's solvency, to write incorrectly how the money "goes right back to the goverment when you die."
As for myself, I'm 34, I'm not counting on Social Security for retirement. It should only be a safety net for those who have encountered difficulties later in life and do not have an income and cannot provide for themselves. Who says we have a right not to work after age 65 (or 70 by the time we get there)? If I don't want to work after a certain age I better save up for it myself. What happened to the Democrat party of JFK who said, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."? It seems to me we are asking the government to provide for us in our retirement, and not providing for ourselves.
P.S. As someone who has changed jobs and have had to deal with 401Ks and rollovers, I use and recommend Vanguard. (I don't work for them) They have very low fees, no load funds, and great online analysis and planning tools.
P.S.S. Save as much as you can early as you can. Compounding interest is your friend, especially over time. It makes a huge difference.
P.S.S.S. Good luck this semester (or quarter) in school.
Posted by Rob | February 4, 2005 12:00 PM