JFlorio wrote:
Yes. Unfortunately Tom the Govt. would have to have rules in place to protect people from themselves. If you chose the investment route their would be specific rules a planned administer had to follow. Such as the older the worker gets the more conservative the investments become. I would use the old 100 rule. If you are forty for ie. 60 % of your investments would be aggressive and 40% would be conservative. As you age the percentages change. Aggressive lessens and conservative increases. There are investments out there that guarantee principal and still have a reasonable rate of return. I would still allow people to take retirement income at 62. Their choice. Let’s say your earnings were $500,000 after all those years of work and you retire at 62. The rules would set your draw at 4.5% payout for life. In this case $22,500/yr. For every year you delay the life time payout goes up .5% so at 67 ( the full retirement age for many workers now, depending on the year they were born) the payout would be 7%. or in case above $35,000/year. I would make 7% the highest % you could draw.. When the worker retires all investments go into principal guaranteed products. Remember in this system as you draw you still make interest. Guaranteeing a payment for life and never having to dip into another workers “bucket” as we do now; so to speak. I’ve given this idea a lot of thought over the years and have taken parts of other countries plans I like. Panama, Japan, Netherlands, to name a few. This would still be based on 6.2% being taken from your paycheck as they do now. The difference being choice.
Yes. Unfortunately Tom the Govt. would have to hav... (
show quote)
Sounds ok to me as long as it is fail safe. Don't want a big crash like in 2008 to wipe it all away and leave seniors with no income at all.