Good evening again, Dave!
Dave Laird wrote to Frank Reichert...
> Not only would we, as taxpayers, be limited to investing in
> officially-approved insurance, at least based upon what Bush said in his
> speech, the government may *want* to dictate when and how much we withdraw
> from our accounts, including the manner of our withdrawal.
I believe that is sort of the way IRA's are administered today, which
might beg the question as to why Social Security private investment
funds should be handled differently either. Certainly the choices in
IRAs and various other retirement tax write-offs today are much better
than what the President is now proposing for the changes he invisions
in the private investment accounts.
The limitations the President seeks for imposing restrictions on the
number and type of securities taxpayers will be forced to choose from
is scary given the track record of political under the table deals
that politicians make all the time to prop up and pour government
corporate welfare into often failing or under capitalized enterprises.
You can imagine something very close to ENRON being a darling of an
investment promoted by various government agencies administering the
new programme, with obvious government bailouts should investors lose
their shirt in a bad investment promoted under the governments
auspices.
> In other words,
> if Bush's plan works the way he wants, although we will be able to invest
> in these "capital funds accounts", the time and manner at which we can
> withdraw our savings will be strictly dictated to us by the insurance or
> investment firms that handle the funds.
As I understand it, there will be "approved" stocks and mutual fund
portfolios 'allowed' in which taxpayers will have the option of
choosing one or more of the approved ones. All other investments, not
so approved, would be off limits insofar as the transfer deduction to
a retirement account with the social security offset in place.
Now, how many politicians do you really trust, not to mention the
bureaucrats running the programme, with your retirement investment
funds? I would suggest that the ones giving the most lucrative
campaign contributions might very well be on the government's overall
'approved' list of securities, while upstart young corporations that
might show more promise, would be left out. Talk about a government
subsidy to the rich and famous!
Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/
Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
