Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
I pretty much agree with your prof. Especially the part about divesting the investing (interesting) of the surplus money. It shouldn't be too difficult to make more than the government pays for loans to itself.
Heck, I'll bet Rudey could get a better return on the money.
I worry that he people who come up with these plans and vote on them aren't relying on the outcome because they have their own retirement system/plan.
|
I could get you 30% but we'll talk later about that.
It's simple, people should have the right to invest in their retirements as they wish.
The average market return is 10% a year and if you put it into more stable and secure securities, the risk goes way down and you still receive a sizable rate.
Additionally, there is a large class of people being denied these investments. I'd be willing to be this professor has a large chunk of his retirement invested actually. But many people do not.
Most economists and experts believe you should be able to invest a portion of your retirement in a stable manner (some say even in an unstable manner). The question though is having enough to pay for the switch to this type of program. This question is also separate from "saving social security" in my opinion. And yes, I don't want 75% of my social security benefits. I want 100% and I want to maximize that.
DeltAlum on the other hand doesn't have to worry about his social security since there is enough to cover him.
-Rudey
Threaded Mode