What I like about the proposal is that I think raising the tax rates so high in the early 1980s made it much harder for lower income people to save and get a ahead. This proposal reverses that trend.

I think the idea that any 60 plus year old can’t make better decisions for himself than the government is extremely ridiculous. A part of the left is just showing that they are elitist and know nothing about the poorer or immigrant people in this country. Believe me, Teresa Kerry couldn’t figure out how to live on a low income. It takes strategizing. It’s the middle class people who generally are profligate spenders. The poor already know how to watch their pennies.

I will read more on this and get back to you.

Most of the money will still be placed within a annuity, so that the person does not fall below poverty rate, the money that could possibly passed on would vary if lets say you fail to meet 3.0% return that would equal SS return, less money would be directed into annuity(so you would lose benefits) less money would be siphoned to the “nest egg”(not much for you to use “freely” or pass on). money not placed within annuity is the money which will be passed on.

You say that this proposal can help minorities the most, now arent you the person that said there should be “test” or rather “eligibility” to ensure safety for the poor, and halt disproportionate gain for the wealthy, now can you guess in which category most minorities would fall under…

Sorry wrong again. Don’t believe the sales pitch, read the fine print.

Hear is a little article that I found with a quick google. Summarizes the whole proposal as far as receiving your benefits.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05087/477888.stm

Let me pick a couple of points to correct your misinformation:

According to senior administration officials:

You couldn’t withdraw from or borrow against your account the way you can with 401(k) retirement savings plans or Individual Retirement Accounts.

You must buy an annuity on retiring that gives you a monthly payment for life.

Even the administration says it is not like a 401K.

Q: Would my annuity die with me, leaving nothing for my heirs?

A: Yes, unless you add features that cover your spouse or a nonspousal heir, in which case your monthly payment will fall further. But retirement expert Paul Yakoboski of the TIAA-CREF Institute agrees such a response is understandable: “People don’t want to get hit by a bus and lose it all.”

The real inheritance issue under private accounts and annuities is the fate of spouses. Social Security now provides for current and former spouses with exes automatically getting benefits if the marriage lasted 10 years: Surviving spouses collect the benefit they earned over their own work years or the benefit of their late spouse, whichever is higher, while stay-at-home spouses get two-thirds of the couple’s benefit.

The White House considers private accounts “marital assets,” however, and marital assets are governed by state laws that vary widely when handling property divisions.

Marital assets typically pass to the current spouse and children from current and former marriages, with most states setting a minimum share for a spouse, says benefits expert Anna Rappaport, a former president of the American Society of Actuaries. She also notes that marital assets are subject to court-approved division in divorce, but here state laws also vary with retirement accounts and other assets subject to negotiation.

The upshot, says University of Wisconsin benefits expert Karen Holden: “There likely would be less protection than in the current system.”

I’ve collected several discussion on that here, but we needn’t get into all of those details, suffice it to say that Bush’s current plan will help even more those who currently happen to die younger, and minorities, especially blacks, have a higher chance of dying younger than others, so Bush’s current plan is an even greater benefit to minorities.

Hasn’t the myth about minorities being screwed by social security been exploded. Here we go again.

This is from the GAO report entitled

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MINORITIES

Earnings, Disability Incidence, and Mortality Are Key Factors That Influence Taxes Paid and Benefits Received

Here is the link

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03387.pdf

Here is the first sentence of the second paragraph. Summarizes the whole report

Differences by race in the relationship between taxes paid and benefits received under Social Security are due mainly to differences in lifetime earnings, the incidence of disability, and mortality among the groups. In the aggregate, blacks and Hispanics have higher disability rates and lower lifetime earnings, and thus as a group tend to receive greater benefits relative to taxes than whites.

By the way Bush proposal has made no mention of disabilities and whether you can start drawing your benefits upon disability.