Ron Paul's district has had privatized Social Security since the early 1980's!

[malkusm]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

http://www.ncpa.org/images/351.gif

:eek: :eek:

[Sola_Fide]

Hmmm. Why isn't this talked about more?

[sailingaway]

Bookmarked. Wish I'd had that during the election.

[dannno]

Hmmm. Why isn't this talked about more?

If Ron Paul came out and started talking about this great model for social security reform in his district, congress would probably try to "do something about it" and take it away from them. You know they would.

[jclay2]

The initial Social Security Act permitted municipal governments to opt out of the system - a loophole that Congress closed in 1983

Why am I not surprised.

[malkusm]

Bump

[Zippyjuan]

The market losing 40% in the economic crisis took a lot fo the steam out of ideas to privatize Social Security. How is the program performing today?

A couple comments I found on the Galvaston plan (it was being compared to the one Bush proposed for the whole country): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1974

■The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan. The Galveston plan does not have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system.[2]

■Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan. Under the Galveston Plan, initial retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.” The SSA study also noted that “there are no additional spousal or dependent benefits… benefits are not portable to future employers; benefits are not adjusted for inflation; and, in general, benefits are lower for those with lower earnings and/or with a greater number of dependents who qualify for Social Security.”[3]

[BuddyRey]

Yeah, I'd like to know how it's doing compared to the centralized, bureaucratized version that we're all familiar with.

[purplechoe]

If Ron Paul came out and started talking about this great model for social security reform in his district, congress would probably try to "do something about it" and take it away from them. You know they would.

lol, but now with it going broke, I think people would listen, to hell with DC!!!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hello people...privatized SS is nothing, but the truest form of Fascism! Wall Street would love to get their grubby little paws on 13% of your paychecks. How about instead of keeping SS in any iteration whether it socialist or fascist, we let people keep their own money and plan for their own retirements (I am sure there would be many institutions to fulfil this demand like Mutual Aid societies, Retirement guilds, insurance policies, etc. on top of investments, dividend returns, savings, etc.)?

[AGRP]

Hmmm. Why isn't this talked about more?

Do you really have to ask?