DIYbanter - View Single Post - OT

wrote:
Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So
according to you I don't really own my house and lot.

Nearly everything we own has limitations on what
we can do with it. Zoning laws work both ways.
They can also keep a junkyard from moving in
next to you. You can also get involved in local
politics and help make the zoning laws.

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make
any decision about it? I think I can not collect it.

So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually
owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan,
does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social
Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury
Bills.
I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some
diversity.

I'm normally a conservative, but in this case
I question Bush's motivations. I think that
the banks will be the main players profiting
from privatizing SS. Look what happend when
the Texans let the savings and loan business
loose.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

One thing ownership means is being able to do what you want with
something. But under the Bush plan, you'd be given just a small range
of approved options of how to invest "your money."

What kind of ownership is that? When money really is yours -- like

your

take-home pay -- the government has no say over how you invest it.
Gold? Pork bellies? Santa Monica real estate? Go for it.

You won't really "own" the money in your private account. Likewise,

you

can't own stars in the sky. At least the International Star Registry

is

up-front enough to admit it.