White House continues to LIE on Soc Sec --- when you die your heirs get $0

[cthrumatrix]

Here is the Q&A on the Soc Sec Plan vs What the WH spins
-----------------------------------------------------------

What happens when I retire?


Upon retirement, workers would be required to trade in their investment portfolios for an annuity so that a combination of traditional benefits and their annuity payments would meet the poverty level, which was about $11,400 for a couple older than 65 in 2004. But if that income stream is higher, under Bush's proposal, retirees could use the additional money in their accounts as they wished, such as continuing to invest, increasing the size of the annuity payment or taking a lump-sum payment.

What happens if you die shortly after you have bought the mandated annuity?

That money is lost, just like in an annuity purchased in the private market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61414-2005Feb3_2.html


Now ...the WH spin (including Scotty's BS)

"Individuals get to keep everything they set aside in personal accounts, plus the increased rate of return they'll realize on their investment," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "So to suggest otherwise is wrong. It is the individual's account, and the government cannot touch it."

snip

White House officials responded that even if the accounts produced no more benefit than the traditional system, they would still be valuable.

"Even if I break even, we would argue I'm still better off because I own the money," a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "If I die, it belongs to my estate. If I divorce, it's a marital asset. And it's protected from political risk. Government can't take it away."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61708-2005Feb3.html


Here is the con....you are FORCED to "take annuity payments" to get money out of the system...when you die-your heirs get zero from the annuity which could represent 100% of your savings.

What your heirs "might get" is if there was an "excess above and beyond a 3% return (inflation adjusted). SO there might be a few extra dollars that a person took as a "lump sum" while taking his main payment in the form of an annuity.


I see an extremely LOW PERCENTAGE ever going to heirs if anything.

Net, net.... they are lying thru their teeth.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Jimmy Roosevelt Jr was on Franken yesterday...

...and was, understandably, livid at the SS proposals - not just because of his grandfather's legacy, but because it's a colossally stupid plan.

http://www.nis.wvu.edu/2002_Releases/RooseveltTalk.htm

<snip>
From 1998-99, Roosevelt served as Associate Commissioner for Retirement Policy for the Social Security Administration. He has also served as chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Democratic Party and has been a member of the Washington, D.C. Advisory Board for the Center for National Policy. He is a past second vice president of the Harvard Medical Center and a trustee for Mount Auburn Hospital and the Massachusetts Hospital Association. In September, Roosevelt became president of the American Health Lawyers Association.
</snip>

[cthrumatrix]

6. funny...MSM does not have time for him

[MSgt213]

2. What you have saved in your personal account will also be deducted from

your SS by an offset. Oh well Bush plans on borrowing 4.3 trillion to fix a 3.4 trillion problem. Makes sense to me.

[cthrumatrix]

3. Scottie is clearly misleading the press .... we need some smart cookies

to hold him accountable to some "very factual questions" and see him

answer.

[izzie]

4. I see it as saying much will be gone also.

Take a man like my father. He died the year SS starting paying him. (Forget he was very ill and could not get one cent early )So it would be gone if he had put it in a annuity. Now I am some what unclear on what they mean by poverty level. Looks to me this means if you have other money at retirement that would bring you above the poverty level.So my father, who never believed in SS and did his own retirement, should not have had to buy an annuity and he would have left all he put into the system? Looks, if this is right. the rich will make out and God help the Blacks that die early after a life time of low pay. Bush said it would be good for them. I do not get this at all.

[cthrumatrix]

5. they are not very clear on purpose. A life Annuity is very clear....here's

how it works:

You put money in (supposedly your nest egg) and in return the insurance company pays you a guaranteed income for life.

When you die...it's gone. If you put in $100,000 and have only drawn $10,000 and die...the other $90,000 belongs to the insurance company.

Some annuities have a life and specified number of years that it pays out. Like life with at least 20 years...but you get a lower payout in this scenario...but your hiers would get it for 20 yrs.

So..they are being very unclear.


(They keep talking about a "povery level" which is BS. The account should be trackable every damn day....every damn dime. And you would know what a payout would be if it grew to "x" or "y")

The only people making it unclear is the WH. Annuities and payouts are quite clear.