Reply #13: Private account may very well seem viable to those who feel they are [View All]

market savy, that includes a lot of the younger workers who may have done fairly well in the markets to date.

The biggest arguments against private accounts (besides the transition costs and the fact that it's not needed) that I've seen are 1)the fees that will be charged, 2)the investment consulting that many not-so-savy workers will be looking for, 3)what are the details (admin, investment options, brokerage selection, etc.) 4)the risks that are inherit in the stock market. What happens to those within say 5-10 years of retirement when there's another 1987 or 2000? I suppose if they weren't savy enough to divest into "safer" options that's their tough luck, but how much SS are they now entitled to? What if the market really takes a dive, like the depression? What safety net will have to be devised for all those who got socked?

It would be a better idea to open more 401-K/IRA type of options for people who want to take the gamble on higher returns, rather than divert funds from the current system. It would take so little to fix the current system compared to the transition costs involved. So, you have to ask, who and what are really driving this decision to go private?

Sorry, probably not what you're looking for. Like I said, without the details of the program it's fairly difficult to debate it. That's why you see more of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" arguments like Krugman than what you seem to be looking for.

Private accounts can't be considered a viable alternative to SS because the goals of the 2 are different, back to the different ideology. Private - I got mine, go get your own vs. Social - security for all, risk or burden shared by all for the betterment of society.