SENIOR JOURNAL.COM - Senior Citizens Information and News

Front Page    Search     Contact Us     Advertise in Senior Journal


SeniorJournal.com

INDEX


FRONT PAGE

PAGE TWO
More Headlines

  General Features

  Find Help

  SENIOR ALERTS

  Baby Boomers

  Odds & Ends

Health-Fitness

  Aging

 • Alzheimer's & Dementia

 • Fitness

 • Health/Medicine

 • Medical Research

 • Nutrition/Vitamin

Government

 • Politics

 • Medicare

 • Medicare Drug Program

 • Medicare Q&A - Dear Marci

 • Medicaid

 • Social Security

 • Social Security, Medicare Q&A

 • Social Security Reform

Enjoying Life

 • Books

 • Entertainment

 • Features

 • Grandparents

 • Senior Statistics

 • Senior Stars

 • Sex & Seniors

 • Sports

 • Travel

 • Senior Volunteers

On The Web

 • Links - Senior

 • Senior Friendly Business Links

 • Sites We Like

Elderly Issues

 • Elder Care

 • Assistance for Elderly

 • Housing

Money 

 • Discounts

 Guarding Your Wealth for Seniors

 • Money Matters

 • Reverse Mortgage

 • Retirement

Thinking

 • Opinions



Senior Journal - Today's News and Information for Senior Citizens

More Senior Citizen News and Information Than Any Other Source - SeniorJournal.com

Today is Tuesday, July 08, 2008

• Go to Social Security or Opinions or  the Front Page

 

Click here to vitamins without a pill.


 

E-mail this page to a friend!

Guest Opinion

Social Security Investment Accounts Would Be Dangerous For Seniors

By David J. Roberts, Associate Professor of Accountancy, DePaul University

Nov. 13, 2004 - President Bush has indicated that, in his second term, the creation of personal accounts under Social Security will be a top priority.  Proponents of so-called personal accounts (to use the more politically marketable terminology for what is really partial privatization) typically argue that such accounts are needed to save Social Security.  But partial privatization would not likely "save" Social Security, and would probably cause serious harm to seniors and long-time participants in the current system. 

Most of the new money going into Social Security goes right back out to pay current benefits.  The excess presently goes into the trust funds, and could instead conceivably be invested in private accounts.  But a big part of the problem is that this excess will be going away.  All the new money and more will ultimately be needed just to pay promised benefits under the current system.  Without privatization, government will already face a major cash-flow problem when it is called upon to redeem the government bonds held by the trust funds.

Diverting new money into private accounts might benefit new younger participants upon their distant retirement, but this would probably come by shortchanging those who have paid into the current system for their entire working lives.  Simply put, if the problem is that there will not be enough money to pay already-promised benefits at a particular date using all of the tax revenue, how would it help to use even less? 

Some privatizers acknowledge that there would be a huge transition cost, saying that the transition could be funded from government's general revenues.  But the total shortfall will ultimately be trillions of dollars.  If privatizers have some secret plan to come up with this money, they should tell us.  Thus far, they have typically avoided addressing this critical question. 

With President Bush's tax cuts, the government budget is showing record dollar amounts of red ink.  And the national debt, representing the accumulation of over 200 years of government borrowing, is up an almost unbelievable 29% under Bush.  So where will the money come from to fund the transition?

Of course those with private accounts could generate higher returns on those accounts than Social Security generates.  Most of the Social Security tax revenues are not invested; they simply go right back out to pay old-age, survivor and disability benefits.  There is relatively little investment upon which to have any return.  So how would privatizers pay all the promised benefits and come up with the new money to invest?

Note that when privatizers promise a higher "return", they frequently ignore the tremendous value of the present survivor and disability coverage that has helped so many families through tough times.  If privatizers plan to end these important aspects of the social safety net, they should say so.

Making matters worse, privatizers usually promise an expensive new benefit--the ability to leave the account balance to heirs upon death.  If government can't afford the present set of benefits, how can it afford this new inheritance benefit?

Current participants should be particularly concerned that good returns on small private accounts would lead younger workers to demand full privatization.  Greater privatization would further drain the new tax revenues needed to pay benefits promised under the present system.

President Bush and most Republicans favor some degree of privatization.  Some believe that it is not the role of government to provide a safety net; people should be on their own to sink or swim.  And it is easy to see how the financial services industry--major Bush campaign contributors--would benefit from getting its hands on those private accounts.  But it is hard to imagine how privatization would help older workers and seniors, and it is easy to see the potential for tremendous harm.

Click to More Senior News on the Front Page

Copyright: SeniorJournal.com

     Back to Top

 

Published by New Tech Media - www.NewTechMedia.com

Other New Tech Media sites include CaroleSutherland.com, BethJanicek.com, www.DeweySquare.com, SASeniors.com, DrugDanger.com, etc.

E-mail - editor@SeniorJournal.com