Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 03:58:00 -0600
From: "Jose Bailen" 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: Social Security Rate of Return
   posting-account=sIeXEA0AAACemXBvhId_zERS52qUcv14
	iQBVAwUARcMLKPl/I4+O31e5AQHhBwH/XVUOvtga05VdvsBM0N7XiAWm6egxIvOn
	5Ng3jfA/YN/g4OzA1SQmjpsiRvcvkA+9XBcLeix70eg8FUO3aBDb5A==
	=8ECZ

On Feb 2, 1:36 am, Greg Hennessy 
wrote:

> As to your last point, since it is obvious that redistribution, social
> safety net, etc, do not depend on having a public pay as you go
> pension system, since Social Security is NOT A PENSION SYSTEM.

I've already specified that I was talking about the pension component
of the Social Security system. This is what it would be better if
privatized, and I gave a compelling argument for it: the much higher
long-term rate of return of stock market investments. What is your
argument to defend the current pay-as-you-go pension system?

> As to the first point, even if we ignore the VERY LARGE COSTS of
> switching from the existing system to make it a pension system, it
> would benefit some tax payers at the expense of others. Changing the
> system the way you advocate would increase the percentage of people
> living below the poverty level.

It depends on how you design the transition between the two system. If
you just ask new entrants in the labor market -i.e, young workers- to
switch to the privatize, the foregone revenue by the SS is not large.
That would make sense also because young workers are the only ones who
have time enough to accumulate wealth in private pension accounts.

> Are you either a US citizen or living in this country? I think you
> have said you live in Spain, and if you don't live here or are a US
> citizen, why are you even commenting on our system?

That's beside the point of the thread. We are talking about the Social
Security system, not about my first ammendment rights. What are your
arguments to defend the current system???