 | | From: | Mason A. Clark | | Subject: | Solution to Soc Sec problem | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:20:22 GMT |
|
|
 | Just occurred to me.
Have the government invest the SS fund in private stocks
and bonds, rather than in treasury bonds as it does now.
That is to say, invest in the growth and profits of the
economy.
This would be safer than letting individuals do the
investing and possibly loser their savings.
And the government could negotiate with Wall Street
for very low commissions
Why not? What's the flaw(s)?
Mason C think, then you will be
|
|
| | From: | Socialism is a Mental Disease | | Subject: | Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:29:53 GMT |
|
|
| On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:20:22 GMT, Mason A. Clark
wrote:
>
>Have the government invest the SS fund in private stocks
>and bonds, rather than in treasury bonds as it does now.
>
> Why not? What's the flaw(s)?
>
Socialism. The State would eventually own the means of production. It
would be worse than the current system.
--
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
|
|
| | From: | New Dark Ages | | Subject: | Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:39:46 GMT |
|
|
| root@localhost. wrote...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:20:22 GMT, Mason A. Clark
> wrote:
> >
> >Have the government invest the SS fund in private stocks
> >and bonds, rather than in treasury bonds as it does now.
> >
> > Why not? What's the flaw(s)?
>
> Socialism. The State would eventually own the means of production. It
> would be worse than the current system.
Details?
|
|
| | From: | tonyp | | Subject: | Re: Solution to Soc Sec problem | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:16:44 -0500 |
|
|
|
"Mason A. Clark" wrote
> Have the government invest the SS fund in private stocks
> and bonds, rather than in treasury bonds as it does now.
>
> That is to say, invest in the growth and profits of the
> economy.
The government can _tax_ the "growth and profits of the economy". Instead
of collecting "dividends" to redistribute to retirees, it can collect
_exactly_the_same_amount_ of money as "taxes" and redistribute it to
retirees. As far as "the economy" is concerned, the same amount of money
remains available for investment in either case.
So, if you do expect "growth and profits" in "the economy" you don't have to
put government in the business of picking winners and losers. If you
_don't_ expect "growth and profits" then it doesn't matter whether you call
the government's take as "taxes" or "dividends" -- it will be inadequate
either way.
--Tony P.
|
|
