Or, I Don't Wanna Participate In Trying To Disagree...
(AN: Yeah, yeah, I get it. Late to chime in on this topic. I originally started this weeks ago, and only found the time to finish through a terrible oh so human malady: the common head cold. If the topic sounds snarly, it's partly because of that, but I don't think it's entirely unsuitable.)
...with so many people who think they're so right. (I sometimes feel the moment I would of shown up to the Republican Revival on that thread, I would of been called a LLL, no matter how good the arguments were.) Granted, the whole choice thing is great and all, and I don't doubt that some of you are roaring at the bit to become stockbrokers with the money you've been forced to squirrel away. And, personally, there's nothing wrong with that, I personally think if that is personally what floats your boat, I think you should, BUT...here are some of the issues I'd like to address with your right to choose. (No pun intended.)
1) Does this solve the problem it's supposed to solve? From my meek understanding of the way the program works, the money gets invested in an personal account from a choice of investment options ranging in how conservative they are (the options, not the supporters). The government takes, or is allowed to borrow, a small part of the funds invested to pay costs. I could be wrong here--but somehow the invested money is supposed to cover the short fall. Which is great, unless the plan goes over like water walking on cement shoes, in which most people don't wanna do it, don't, and we don't get this short fall in Social Security solved. That leaves us with either: making the programs permenant, borrowing the money from elsewhere, increasing taxes or lowing the payroll ceiling to make up for it.(If this ISN'T the way SS will work, someone let me know politely, please.)
2) You might be brilliant investors. The government might ensure maximum return over time. However, it's not uncommon for tradegy to strike and ruin your investment. Even if it is your choice to do this, I think it's a terrible idea to potentally leave your future to the vagaries of economics. If you plan to work for the rest of your life, that's one thing; potentally, the SS idea really wasn't made for you except supplimentry income. If tradegy strikes, however, who will pay for you? Your children? While I shouldn't personally care, I can't help but do a little, having been raised on the radical belief that government should help people.
3) Then there's the generic argument of, just because the president has a great idea, let's just not impliment it all at once. Even if this is fazed in progressively like it's been proposed, this is going to take money that I keep hearing we don't have to form these accounts. Couldn't this wait for a better time when the proof is that we are more solvent? Another year or two, perhaps? To use a very conservative argument that's ironic considering I just posted number two, why do I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for the other guy to get something I don't have any plan to use? I find it ironic the fiscally responsible party has helped form a decifit, and even more ironic the fact that they plan to implement an idea that has to come from somewhere that will cost even more money than just outright raising taxes, lowering the payroll ceiling or a few other arguments I've heard to keep SS solvent.
And right now, in dire need of the sweet ass taste of Thera Flu (TM), those are my arguments. And the biggest argument I plan to hear is probably this is why investment accounts are not right for me.
Sniffling His Way Into Contention, the AWM/wolf dragon (with a cold, dammit!)
Sol