What if we, like BWC, invest poorly? - LTE Toledo Blade

[liberal N proud]

Article published Monday, June 27, 2005

What if we, like BWC, invest poorly?


Couldn't help but notice the caption under the picture of Tina Kielmeyer and Tom Hayes on the June 22 front page. It says that "… the lacked the skills to handle its investments." How does President Bush expect average citizens to be able to handle investing their retirement funds if those persons in charge of investing the funds of the BWC don't have the necessary skills?


My question has always been this: What plan is there for helping out those who, like the BWC officials, make a mess of their investments?

Will President Bush have some sort of support system in place for them or will they be forced to beg on the street?

My guess is that they would be on their own and out of luck. Of course, as is always the case, those who are wealthy and able to hire investment counselors and have enough money to adequately diversify their funds will be fine. It is important that we consider the impact that any changes in Social Security might have on those of us less fortunate. It is already hard enough for many retirees to make ends meet.

The last thing society needs is a group of retirees who thought they knew enough about investing to handle their own money, then found out, too late, that they didn't, or that those they entrusted their money to "lacked the skills."

SHARON CURRENT
Grand Rapids, Ohio

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050627/OPINION03/506260332/-1/OPINION

[elextech]

1. don't throw out baby with bath water

The personal / private account idea can be useful, but, as you've pointed out, not by allowing folks to do their own investing.

People my age (21.... ah .... er .... ok, 54 years old) will never get back as much as we've put into the SS system over the years. In other words, it's like having an investment portfolio which has consistantly lost money every year. If people were allowed to put a small portion of their money (say, about 10% of their payday share normally sent to the SS fund) in bank or credit-union passbook savings accounts, each of which is covered by the federal savings insurance system (I can't remember the name of this program), then people would get back at least as much as they put into the system, which is better than what they can expect now. If they get enough interest to cover inflation, that's MUCH better than what they get now.

If ten percent (or some similar number) of their expected payroll SS contribution is not enough for their personal taste, then there are IRA accounts.

The bulk of the SS payroll contributions would still go to the federal government as they do now to ensure that the other parts of the SS system remain intact (e.g., disability, survivor benefits. etc.)

[liberal N proud]

2. And when you have invested the money and lost it all?

Then who is going to take care of you when you get old.

The purpose of Social Security is to insure there is money there for you when you are no longer drawing a salary.
There is nothing stopping people from investing money in some lame investment scheme, just don't tap into the protected Social Security funds to support it.
Social Security was created because many people lost all they had in the "STOCK MARKET"

[Gunit_Sangh]

3. Here's an idea

Why don't YOU save 10% of your payroll SS contribution. Heck, don't stop there, save 10% of your income.

Nobody is stopping you from doing that are they?