Posted by xin xiu24 on 6. Okt 2016

wants to be a president; the President of the United States? Social Security

reform is the winning ticket. Research supports the thesis that Social Security

reform would provide all the lubrication necessary to get our economic ball

bearings rolling in the right direction. Economies do not grow ,

or increase employment, when job providers are taxed and regulated unmercifully,

throttling their energy, creativity, and profitability. Consumer spending pushes

the economy; we need to do more than hand out a few hundred bucks.


objective of the exercise, Barack, is to permanently place more disposable

income in consumers' wallets while providing incentives for employers to hire

more workers. There are three areas where the impact of reforms would be

beneficial to all, irrespective of political sentiment. Social Security reform

would benefit the most people, most quickly. Next on the list, Hillary, would be

elimination of income taxes (federal, state ,

and local) on: (a) all forms of retirement income, and then, (b) all forms of

investment income. Third, and particularly important for job creation, John,

would be the elimination of all income taxes and nuisance fees on


Who wants to be President?

Social Security will be the

easiest to implement quickly while producing unprecedented increases in

disposable income, business cost reductions, and job growth. Here's a rough

outline of a brainstorming plan. Throw out the politics and focus on the

program--- phase one deadline, January 1,2010.

Change Social Security

funding to a mandatory, private program, for all employed persons ,

and add a voluntary program for those who are not employed. All employees would

contribute to deferred fixed annuities, purchased from new divisions of

qualified financial institutions. Existing Social Security credits would be the

initial deposit to the contracts for all participants under age


Employer matching contributions would be eliminated and participant

contributions would be cut to a mandatory 3% of total compensation (including

deferred comp, stock options, etc.). Both changes would be phased into the

system by participant age group over a five-year period, youngest first. The

five age groups would be 13-year periods starting at zero to thirteen (obviously

for voluntary accounts) and ending with ages fifty-two through


Phase one would involve qualifying providers, assignment of

workers, issuance of contracts, elimination of employer matching contributions,

and elimination of income taxes on social security payments. Employers would be

required to appoint at least one person to coordinate the


Contributions to the annuity contracts would begin upon

issue; the Social Security Administration (SSA) would have five years to move

credits to participants, starting with the youngest group, and would be

responsible for shortfalls to retirees for five years.

Under the new

system, there would be no penalties for early retirement ,

but tax free annuity payments would begin at age sixty-five whether or not the

person continued to work. Participants could voluntarily establish retirement

accounts for non-working spouses and children, and could elect to deduct an

additional 1% of salary for each account. A new Federal Administration for

Social Security (ASS) will select, qualify, and monitor provider companies and

their investment portfolios to assure that only high quality, income-generating

securities are used to fund benefits.

Companies showing a surplus would

be able to invest up to 25% of the surplus in stocks that qualify for the

Investment Grade Value Stock Index (IGVSI). Only fixed life annuities would be

available, but there would be 50% of cash value, family-only, death benefits up

until the time of retirement. After age 65, the death benefit would be reduced

10% per year for four years. There would be no loans, withdrawal privileges,


The ASS would be represented on provider company boards, would

monitor annual audits of firm financial statements ,

and would supervise the selection of all non-company directors (60% of the

board). Each provider company would be encouraged to use non-market value

portfolio assessment techniques, such as The Working Capital Model, to monitor

income portfolios. Retiree associations would also be represented on company

boards of directors, and board member compensation would be capped at a

reasonable number, plus 45% of ASS related expenses.

Annuity providers

would be assigned a fair share of the huge Social Security Retirement Income

Account (SSRIA) participant pool; every dollar contributed would be invested.

All providers would use the same mortality tables and base interest rate

guarantees in their calculations and would be precluded from any form of

advertising. Companies would be required to focus 100% of their efforts on the


Annuity providers would be allowed a .5% investment management fee

so long as the Annuity Investment Portfolio generated no less than the 3.5%

income level needed to fund a guaranteed 3% contractual cash value growth rate.

50% of any excess realized income would be added to retirement accounts in the

form of dividends.

The remaining 50% would be apportioned between three

separately managed accounts for: retirement benefit support contingencies (20%),

universal health care and disability benefits for annuitants (50%), and post

retirement death benefits (10%). Half of the remaining 20% would become

"surplus". The balance would accrue equally to the employees of the insurance

company--- the mailroom staff receiving the same dollar amount as the


These changes would produce: a whole new sub-industry of jobs,

increase disposable

0 Comment


Logg inn for å skrive en kommentar.

Powered by: Bloc