A majority of Americans agree that younger workers should be allowed to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Cato Institute. Despite a drumbeat of criticism for weeks by congressional Democrats and a concerted public relations campaign by powerful interest groups such as the AARP against Social Security choice, 51 percent of those polled by Zogby support the introduction of individual accounts. Only 39 percent opposed individual accounts being part of any Social Security reform.With the results of this poll, expect those drumbeats to increase in volume and tempo. The age breakdowns show the expected trends with support inversely proportional to age:
Not surprisingly, the results showed a split along age lines, with younger voters (61 percent among those under 30, 58 percent of those under 50) strongly in favor of individual accounts, while those over 65 were opposed (55 percent against). However, opposition by seniors dropped to just 45 percent if they were assured that their own benefits would not be affected.Personally, I like the individual accounts because they make a portion of the contributions inaccessable to the legislature. Think of it as 180 million tiny Goresque lockboxes.
Amen. Individual accounts are heritable, they belong to the investor. And private accounts will grow at a much faster rate than Social Security—I estimate that the net growth of my SS contributions over the years, if I live long enough to withdraw what I have put in, will be just over 1%. That’s shameful.
Not as shameful as the situation for most of us. Most of the people in my generation, if we live long enough to start collecting, will see nothing - at least if changes are not made to the program.
No idea how to calculate that earning rate, except that I know it starts with a negative sign.
The people against allowing me to control a small part of my Social “Security” are simply against freedom. Time to start calling them by their real names. They’re not “liberals”. They’re Marxists.
I actually almost wrote something similar in my original post. I was thinking the progress of Social Security through the years as it has turned from “Retirement Plan” to “Pyramid Scheme” and now finally (if left alone), “Entitlement”.
Perhaps that is part of the hesitation to reform it - if it is allowed to slide, it simply becomes another entitlement paid for out of the general fund.
I suspect it was planned that way from the onset King. The origins weren’t born of capitalist free loving men. They were born of redistributional socialist, and/or Marxist men.
http://king-of-fools.com/blog/trackback/1631/RMCBaNF0/