|
Being unemployed :eyes: I took the time to look up all the income numbers and such through the US Census rather than just consulting "pulledouttamyass.com", so my figures are real, at least according to the US Gov. Let me know what you think. I'd like to know. - TBW
************************************************************
I am writing to urge you to oppose privatizing Social Security in any
way and to oppose any law that funnels Social Security dollars through
Wall Street.
Wall Street has already received a tremendous boost by the federal
government with the creation of 401k programs. These retirement investment
programs REQUIRE that employees invest their retirement savings in a
relatively slim choice of mutual funds chosen by their employer. These
mutual funds always charge "management fees" with the idea that we are
paying a small fee for the professional management of our fund. The
thing is, as anyone who has invested in mutual funds in the last 20 years
knows, all funds are not winners, any more than all stocks are. Yet we
have to pay that fee whether the fund managers invest our money wisely
or not.
The money I invested in a 401k back in 1998 is just now returning to
the original amount I invested. I didn't just lose my earnings in the
last bear market, I lost plenty of my principal as well. And I have to
pay a fee for this "professional management"? Someone give me a chimp
and a dart board and I bet my stock picks would be just as good and I'd
probably pay less to feed the chimp!
To turn more retirement money over to Wall Street to manage is
ludricrous. Wall Street doesn't make money when their clients' make money on
their investment. They make money when people make the investment and
make trades, whether they are profitable for the client or not. We
count on them for good advice, because after all, if we make more money, we
have more to invest and therefore they stand to make even more, BUT
THEY ARE NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Yes, occasionally they give "advice" that
is so bad that the SEC investigates and fines someone, but how does
that help the shareholders? Maybe a class action suit is even brought,
but that helps the attorneys for both sides, as well as the court that
the suit is filed in, more than any shareholders. Do we really want our
most basic safety net invested in something so unpredictable?
The creation of IRA's, both Roth and Traditional, is a bit more fair to
the investor because they can choose their investments from a much
broader range of investments (not just mutual funds) but even those plans
also benefit financial services companies and Wall Street the most.
To top it off, President Bush either doesn't understand how Social
Security is set up, or he's misleading Americans as to how it is set up.
It was set up so that the workers of today pay for the benefits of the
retirees of today. If there is a surplus, then that is set aside for
times, such as when the baby boomers start retiring in large numbers,
where there may be an imbalance in terms of what today's workers (and
their employers) are contributing, and what has to be paid out. It is not
in any kind of imminent danger and there are numerous and essentially
painless ways that contributions could be stepped up.
The Social Security wage threshold went from $87,900 in 2004 to $90,000
in 2005, an increase of 2.4%. Not bad, but we have over 11 MILLION
workers who make over 90K a year.
The median HOUSEHOLD income in America is $43K per year (and that means
56 Million households make more, and 56 Million MAKE LESS) and more
than half of those households have two OR MORE earners. 11 Million people
in the US make more than twice that $43K or less that half of American
families are living on. Do you think we might ask them to step up to
the plate and raise the limit on which they pay Social Security tax?
Raising the limit $5K per year would only be an extra $310 per year for
each of those people, but the combination of those 11 Million $310
contributions, plus those of their employers, would add an additional $6.8
Billion to Social Security the first year, double that the second year
(as you raise it another $5K) and so on, UNTIL SOCIAL SECURITY IS
SECURE. It seems like a rather small price to pay on an incremental level by
these lucky individuals, who aren't elderly, aren't orphaned and aren't
disabled. Congress wouldn't have to raise the limit $5K per year
forever, just until Social Security is back in a comfort zone. Surely this
would be easier, safer and more economical that putting our country
another trillion dollars in debt in order to start a risky plan of private
investment which has a guaranteed benefit to only one group; the
businesses that sell the investment vehicles.
I could go on, but I think you should be able to understand my point.
Either you agree with it or you don't. I'll be able to see, when I see
how you vote, and believe me, I and the rest of American will be
watching. We voted for you to fight for US, not for Wall Street.
Sincerely,
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
