Comments on: Counterparties: Living longer with less A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: TFF Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:15:34 +0000 “Let the government offer a default option and allow people to opt into a qualified private provider if they so chose.”

What kind of fee structure do you envision, y2kurtus? Will Wall Street be skimming 1%+ per year for the hard work of punching a few buttons to tell computers to execute pre-programmed strategies or will they settle for “just” 0.1% of the wealth of the country each year?

Besides, we already have mandatory Social Security contributions of 12%+ annually (half from employee, half from employer). You want to layer another 10% on top of that?

By: y2kurtus Wed, 12 Jun 2013 02:29:14 +0000 FifthDecade is spot spot spot on. Allowing people not to save essentially mandates that workers and savers heavily subsidize the health risks, the longevity risks of non-savers. Let the government offer a default option and allow people to opt into a qualified private provider if they so chose.

Only people with nothing to lose throw rocks at cops and set cars on fire in the streets. I’d like to keep those images confined to my tv screen and not something I see out my window.

By: FifthDecade Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:35:54 +0000 Publius and you seem to be having a silliness competition here, Felix! :-)

First of all, Publius, who says compulsory savings need to be managed by the government? In Switzerland they are privately run, but still require 5% from each of the employee and employer to be saved each year. All the government did was mandate saving. Your point is bit of a knee jerk.

Felix, “all defined-contribution schemes are reliant on the market going up” is surely disingenous and missing the point; they are reliant on people saving. At the moment it is clear people are not saving enough, even a DC scheme that loses 50% of the money put into it will still have more money in it than the person who did not save at all. That might be a bad scheme in comparison to others, but your point is a bit like saying “don’t ever save, because it’s risky”.

By: Publius Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:34:18 +0000 Yes, the government has been so assiduous about safeguarding my data, I certainly trust them to manage my retirement funds with the same care and diligence. Bring on more mandates!

Of course mutual fund companies want mandatory savings. And Sturm-Ruger wants mandatory handgun education. And the California Raisin Alliance wants mandatory red wine distribution. After all, it’s “for the children.”

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.”